"LAKE SACRAMENTO" - Can It Happen Again?

~__ K srrREl'~T IN T'HE '62 FLOO

Leon Hunsaker with Claude Curran "LAKE SACRAMENTO"

- Can It Happen Again?

Printed by COpy QUIK & ACADEMY PRINTING GRANTS PASS, OREGON

Copyright© November 2005 Foreward

We are two old men with something to say and not much time left to say it. We have tackled a project that is twice the magnitude of our combined weights (which is considerable)!

You may be disappointed that we don't have a standard bibliography -- for this we apologize. However, we do have references to back up what we say and have included a num­ ber of supplements to keep our story flowing.

If you'd care to spend 3,4,5, $6 --- (who knows how much) a gallon for gas and drive to Southern Oregon, we'll be happy to show you our backup material. Don't wait too long. Our eyesight is still OK but our hearing is fading fast! Biographical Sketch: Leon Hunsaker (11/1/05)

1. Born in Deweyville, Utah May 6, 1923 2. Graduated from Bear River High School in Garland, Utah in 1941 3. Married Margaret Worlton of Lehi, Utah in Logan, Utah June 10, 1947 4. Four Children (Claudia, Martin, Elizabeth and Arthur), 17 Grandchildren and 4 Great Grandchildren 5. WWII: Bomber Pilot and combat crew training -- flew both B-17s & B-29s 6. B.S. Degree "Aeronautics" --- St. Louis University 7. M.S. Degree "Meteorology" --- M.I.T. 8. Chief Meteorologist --- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (San Francisco) 9. Associate Professor --- California State University (Sonoma)

10. T.v. Meteorologist --- KPIX Ch.#5 (San Francisco), KTVL Ch.#10 & KOBI Ch.#5 in Medford, Oregon 11. Founded Jet Stream Weather in 1979 (supplied weather forecasts to a network of radio stations in Oregon, Northern Calif. & Wyoming) 12. Still have a 7: 15 A.M. Weathercast (Mon. thru Fri.) on KDOV-FM radio in Medford, Oregon Claude W. Curran Ph.D.

I was born in Oakdale, California on October 6, 1938, where I lived the first six years of my life. In 1944 my family moved from there to Sonora, California. In the Fall of 1948 we moved to Paradise, California where I graduated from Paradise Elementary School in 1953. In October 1953 we moved to Corning, where I graduated from Corning Union High School in 1956.

My wife Gib (Gwendolyn) and I were married in Durham, California in 1962. We have three marvelous daughters (two of whom are married), and seven beautiful grandchildren.

I earned a BS in Social Science from California State University, Chico, in Chico, California in 1961: and MS (1963) and Ph.D. (1973) in Geography from the University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

I taught one semester at Sacramento State University, Sacramento, California in 1964; one year at California State University, Chico (1968 - 1969); and, a total of 36 years at Southern Oregon University in Ashland, Oregon. To: OUf families -- especially OUf wives Gwendolyn and Margaret

AND

Mr. Don Bradshaw pointing out the December 1955 high wa er mark. The 2" x 4" nailed to the tree is at the 110.6' mark on the gauge at Fordyce. (10-6-59)

Thank you Brad - You made it possible! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Claude

Many people were very helpful in aiding us find the information we needed. In all instances people exceeded our expectations and for that we are extremely grateful. However, these folks are in no way responsible for any errors in fact or judgment; those are ours alone.

Our heartfelt thanks are offered to the following people: Jim Goodridge, State Climatologist (Retired); Maurice Roos, Chief Hydrologist, California Department of Water Resources (Retired); Thomas C. Haltom, GIS AnalystlPublic Information Officer, USGS; Rick Weaver, HydrologistiOSC, Tahoe National Forest; Randal Osterhuber, Central Sierra Snow Laboratory, UC Berkeley; "Martha", Nevada County Library, Grass Valley, California; Nicole Claffy, Librarian, California State Library, Sacramento, California and to Mark McLaughlin, Weather HistorianlWriterlPublisher.

To my wife Gwen, for so graciously giving up the dining room table and the space I needed for a makeshift cartography laboratory.

Leon

The Roskelley Brothers (my grandsons) Jared, Jacob and Jordan. 1. Jared for his website design and installation on the Internet. His computer skills were also uti­ lized to extract streamflow data found on the Internet. 2. Jordan for his initial assistance in developing the graphs. 3. Jacob for a "bang up job" in completing all of the computer generated graphs and other visuals needed for this report.

Jeanette Dickson gave us a major boost. Her unique organizational skills were greatly appreciated. Both Claude and I were impressed with how quickly she analyzed what needed to be done. Her timely com­ ments and observations brought all of the loose ends together. Not an easy task when you are dealing with two old men!

Mark Hastings for expert computer advice.

John Torrens and his retired PG&E Company friends for their willingness to help locate vital information.

Redge Heth for calling our attention to press releases dealing with levee maintenance problems and poten--: tial flooding in the Sacramento Valley.

To my family for their support and encouragement. We especially want to thank my daughter Claudia for making the facilities and personnel of Copy Quik and Academy Printing available for this project.

Final1y to Ann Whipple of the Book Club of California for giving us permission to use the photo of K Street in Sacramento during the flood of 1862. This picture from the book "A Camera In The Gold Rush, Part II Sacramento Flood Pictures And Text" by Robert Vance. CONTENTS

PREFACE...... Page 1 INTRODUCTION...... 5 CHAPTER I - A Brief History of Early Floods...... 11 CHAPTER II - The Search for Information...... 19 CHAPTER III - Yuba Watershed Now Profiles Prior to 1861-62 Flood Events...... 23 DIAGRAM A - Stream Basin Model...... 25 CHAPTER IV - Main Factors Contributing to Runoff...... 27 CHAPTER V - Information Used in Estimating Stream Flows 1861-62...... 31 CHAPTER VI - Flood Classification Model with Estimated Return Periods...... 37 CHAPTER VII - High Water Events Yuba Watershed & Vicinity 1863-1903...... 45 TABLE VII-A - Analyses of Significant High Water Events 1863-1903 ...... 47 CHAPTER VIII - YES!...... 49 SUPPLEMENT 1 - Newspaper Accounts of High Water 1861-62...... 55 SUPPLEMENT 1A- Information Used to Estimate Snow Cover on the Yuba Watershed December 5, 1861...... 61 SUPPLEMENT 1B- Information Used to Estimate Snow Cover on the Yuba Watershed January 7, 1862...... 67 SUPPLEMENT 1C- Information Used to Estimate Snow Cover on the Yuba Watershed January 18,1862...... 71 SUPPLEMENT 2 - Evidence of Record Flood Along Russian River, Early January 1862...... 75 SUPPLEMENT 3 - Heavy Snow at Low Elevations, January 5 & 6, 1862...... 81 SUPPLEMENT 4 - Below Freezing Temperatures Prior to Snow Storm of January 5 & 6, 1862...... 85 DIAGRAM B - Sacramento River Oscillation Chart 1849-1862 ...... 89 SUPPLEMENT 5A- Does the Flood of December 1867 Qualify as a Chapter VI Scenario #4 Flood Event?...... 91 SUPPLEMENT 5B- Does the Flood of January 1875 Qualify as a Chapter VI Scenario #4 Flood Event?...... 95 SUPPLEMENT 5C- Does the Flood of February 1881 Qualify as a Chapter VI Scenario #4 Flood Event?...... 99 SUPPLEMENT 5D- Does the Flood of January 1896 Qualify as a Chapter VI Scenario #4 Flood Event?...... 103 SUPPLEMENT 6 - Estimated Return Periods for Scenario Floods...... 105

APPENDIX

PLATES Plate I - Northern California Plate II - Northern Sierra Nevada Plate III - Central California Plate IV - Yuba River Basin

SNOW PROFILES Profile 1 - December 5, 1861 Profile 2 - January 7, 1862 Profile 3 - January 18, 1862 Profile 4 - March 15, 1907 Profile 5 - January 11, 1909 Profile 6 - December 19, 1955 Profile 7 - December 19, 1964 Profile 8 - February 15, 1986 Profile 9 - December-January 1996-97

FIGURES Figure 1 - Grass Valley Daily Precipitation, December-January 1861-62 Figure 2 - Sacramento Daily Precipitation Figure 3 - Sacramento Daily Mean Temperatures Figure 4 - Yuba Watershed - Relationship Between Grass Valley and Lake Spaulding Precipitation Figure 5 - Three Day Precipitation “Burst” Figure 6 - Yuba Watershed - Percent Covered by Snow 40 inches or Less in Depth Figure 7 - Yuba Watershed - Percent of Watershed with Snow Greater Than 40 inches Figure 8 - Percent of Area Below Snow Line Figure 9 - Thirty one Day Precipitation Prior to Three Day “Burst” Figure 10 - Weighted Mean Temperatures of Three Day “Burst” Figure 11 - Fifty Two Consecutive Days of Runoff with Corps of Engineers Computations Figure 12 - Fifty Two Day Smartville Runoff - 20th Century vs 1861-62 – in Acre Feet Figure 13 – Fifty Two Consecutive Days of Runoff with Corps Computations – in Acre Feet

GRAPHS Graph 1 - Estimated Daily Mean Stream Flow 1861-62 Graph 2 - Daily Mean Stream Flow Yuba River at Smartville 1907 Graph 3 - Daily Mean Stream Flow Yuba River at Smartville 1909 Graph 4 - Daily Mean Stream Flow Yuba River at Smartville 1955 Graph 5 - Daily Mean Stream Flow Yuba River at Smartville 1964 Graph 6 - Daily Mean Stream Flow Yuba River at Smartville 1986 Graph 7 - Daily Mean Stream Flow Yuba River at Smartville 1997

TABLES Table A - Snow Pack Depletion During Heavy Warm Storms Table B - Rate of Decrease in Flow Table C - Percent of Watershed Area Within 1000 Foot Intervals PREFACE

Leon Hunsaker

I first became interested in flood producing storms while an employee of Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) in the early 1960's. We were preparing for a lawsuit filed against PG&E and the State of California for property damages caused by the December 1955 flood in the Yuba City-Marysville area. Since PG&E was being sued for cloud seeding activities on the Feather River watershed, I was asked by the attorney representing the company if there were any historical floods greater than December 1955. As I recall, his intent was to close the door on any argument by the plaintiffs claiming that cloud seeding was instrumental in making December 1955 the worst flood of record in that area.

The assignment was complicated by two things: 1) December 1955 turned out to be the greatest flood in the first 55 years of the 20th-century in Northern California, and 2) most of the stream flow and weather records that may have been kept prior to 1906 were lost when the records center was destroyed by the earthquake and fires in San Francisco. This forced me to pursue other sources of information such as newspapers, diaries of early settlers, books on the early history of the area, and expeditions sponsored by private organizations like the Hudson Bay Fur Company. I was aided in my search by a sharp young history major named David Madruga.

Newspaper accounts from towns and mining camps in Gold Rush country as well as from the larger cities such as Sacramento and Berkeley became the primary source of information. Numerous trips were made to libraries in the Sacramento Valley, the Bay area and the smaller cities and towns up and down the California Sierra. I also learned a great deal about the Civil War while going through the newspapers from the 1860s because this was the period of the most severe storms and floods that occurred throughout Northern and Central California. It soon became apparent that the floods of this era exceeded the one in December 1955.

After several years of preparation, the case went to trial and the judge rendered a decision in favor of PG&E. I received a pleasant surprise when I was asked if I wanted the records and reports related to the case. By then I was hooked, and vowed to Donald Bradshaw that some day I would write about what we had learned regarding historical floods in California. Bradshaw (a company claims adjuster par excellence) was the person who cleared the way and made it possible for me to receive the case files. The older I get, the more I realize that some day belongs next to never in the dictionary. However, with the help of Dr. Claude Curran, a trusted friend and colleague, I am able to keep the promise I made to a wonderful man, Donald Bradshaw, more than 40 years ago.

A comparison of the flood period in December and January of 1861-62 with December 1955 is a real eye-opener! One of the things that jumps out and hits you is the realization that in 1861-62 there was a series of four high water events sandwiched into a six and one half week period between the first week of December 1861 and the last week of January 1862. Furthermore, our preliminary investigation indicates there is enough evidence to classify three of the four 1861-62 high water events as major floods. The floods of December 1955, December 1964, February 1986 and January 1997 caused serious high water problems in various parts of the Sacramento Valley and, at the time, received wide media coverage. This raises the big question: What would happen if a sequence of flood-producing storms similar to 1861-62 paid a return visit? To help answer this question we need to assess the magnitude of each flood event in the 1861-62 1 series. This is easier said than done. As I mentioned earlier, streamflow data for flood events in the 19th century are skimpy at best. Most of the available storm and flood information comes from newspapers published in areas where gold-mining was the most active. This identifies another issue: Since the most widely used method of mining involved sluicing, high water marks (on trees, bridge abutments, buildings, etc.) are not reliable indicators of the magnitude of early flood events. Rocks and gravel dumped into streams by miners not only changed the depth of the stream flow at a given location, but it also altered the width or cross section of the stream bed.

Without stream flow data or reliable peak stage information, we have no direct method of estimating the magnitude of these early high water events. An indirect method involves an examination of the major factors that determine runoff, such as storm precipitation, storm temperature and watershed conditions. For example, one of the major watershed components that affects runoff is the distribution of snow (depth vs. elevation). This information can be gleaned from reports passed along by miners and travelers to newspapers such as the Grass Valley National, the Plumas Standard, the Nevada Daily Transcript and others. In addition, precipitation amounts were either observed or reported by several of the Gold Rush country newspapers .

We chose the Yuba Watershed as an index for the Sacramento Valley because most of the early storm and watershed information needed for our study comes from this region. It also happens to be more centrally located. (See Plate II.) The Englebright Dam (since 1941), the New Bullards Bar Reservoir (since 1969), Bowman Lake (since 1926), Lake Spaulding (since 1912), Jackson Meadows Reservoir (since 1964), Scotts Flat Reservoir (since 1949) along with several other smaller reservoirs have stored some of the runoff. These storage facilities, coming on line at different times, complicate any procedure used to compare the flows produced by the various flood events.

But not all is lost! Years ago, while consulting for the State of California, anytime I needed meteorological data or streamflow information I would get in touch with Jim Goodridge, retired State Climatologist with the California Department of Water Resources. After 40 some years, our paths crossed again. During our research, one of the people we contacted in California said, “I don’t have the information you’re looking for but I know who does.” Then he gave us the telephone number of my long- lost friend – Jim Goodridge. In addition to graciously filling our numerous requests for data and information, Jim put us on the trail of a remarkable study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A section of this study estimates the “Annual Maximum Rain Flood Flows – Unregulated Conditions (Flows in CFS) for the Yuba River Near Marysville.” The effect of storage on runoff was eliminated by their routing procedures and unregulated flow computations. For each water year the largest single day mean flow is followed by the heaviest consecutive 3, 7, 15 and 30-day totals. These totals are expressed in average daily amounts.

Even though the amount of storm data and watershed information available is somewhat limited for 19th century floods, it is our opinion that a realistic assessment of the runoff potential can be made for each December 1861-January 1862 flood event. We believe that, with some reasonable adjustments, this can be accomplished by using the runoff data from similar high water events that occurred in the 20th century.

In Chapter I: A Brief History of Early Floods, important background information is presented on early flooding in Northern California–with emphasis on the Sacramento Valley. We have included material not usually found in flood histories of the area. This chapter will give you a feel for what it was like to live

2 in Northern California during times of flooding prior to and immediately following the discovery of gold.

We will discuss how we went about collecting and organizing the watershed and storm data that were used to evaluate the runoff potential for each of the three major 1861-62 flood events. A description of the procedure that was used to identify similar high water events in the 20th century will also be included. In addition, an attempt was made to find reasonable 20th century matches for some of the smaller storms that occurred during the 1861-62 series.

We will also present our thoughts on a model for a flood classification system and will apply this model to the Yuba Watershed. It is based upon different sequences of storm activity and watershed conditions. Using redwood trees as long-term indicators of flood activity and climatological history for the shorter term, we will attempt to estimate a return period for each flood producing scenario in our classification system.

Our main objective is to answer the question posed in the title:

“Lake Sacramento”--- Can It Happen Again?

3

INTRODUCTION

FOOD GROWS WHERE WATER FLOWS

Claude Curran, Ph.D.

“Food grows where water flows” is a well known slogan promoting agriculture in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, as well as other agricultural areas in California. Perhaps we, in an increasingly urban society, have lost track of the importance of water to our very survival in many aspects of our daily lives. Water is apparently taken for granted when we do not have to think about its origin and distribution; it is there, and we use it.

Let us journey back in time to California of the Gold Rush days over 150 years ago. The story of the finding of gold, the rush of miners coming to the diggings and the subsequent growth of California are well known facets of the state’s history. Many of the people who came in search of riches came from areas east of the Mississippi and were familiar with climates that tended to be moderately severe. Winters were cold and snowy, except in the South, and summers were hot and humid fostering a growing season that was extremely favorable to agriculture. Emigrants who came to California from those kinds of climates in the United States and Europe must have been greatly surprised to arrive in a place that had green grass in the valleys and foothills in January and February! The mild spring weather was followed by scorching heat that parched the land and stressed plant life from the valley floors high into the mountains. How can we even commence to imagine how foreign that was to most of the people who came in search of riches?

Surely it became apparent to the newcomers very quickly that in order to survive in such a land there would have to be dependence upon the vast supplies of high quality water that flowed from the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges and to a lesser extent from the Coast Range. The use of copious amounts of water in the recovery of gold not only produced riches but it also established California as one of the world’s foremost hydraulic societies!

Water, in the early days, was used to recover gold by various methods ranging from the gold pan to sluice boxes of various kinds and hydraulic mining which utilized powerful jets of water under great pressure to wash away stream deposits and trapping the precious metal where it could be easily recovered. Small dams, coffers, canals, flumes and pipes were used to direct the water where it was needed at just the right time. Winter rains provided water for these uses in the cool season and snow melt from the high mountains provided water during the hot and dry season.

At the same time, major rivers were utilized for commerce with many steam boats, barges, and assorted other craft carrying people, supplies, and a variety of goods to inland ports for transshipment to the diggings. Sacramento bloomed as one of those inland ports connecting the mines with San Francisco and the rest of the outside world. Two major river systems, the Sacramento and the San Joaquin, focused on the delta and connection to San Francisco area ports of call. These transportation routes were direct, inexpensive and promoted the hauling of not only precious cargos but also heavy, bulky loads as well as passengers. It would be fair to say that a burgeoning urban empire was being built and water played a

5 very significant role in this drastic change in California’s history.

Euphemisms refer to petroleum as “Black Gold” and platinum as “White Gold” but why has water not been referred to as “Blue Gold”? High quality, clear water flows from the mountains into the lowland areas. In many cases, the water originated and has flowed across ancient crystalline rocks or more geologically recent volcanic rocks which have ensured minimal sediment and other pollutants contained in the water. Why is California blessed with this wealth that has resulted in agricultural industries as highly varied and productive as anywhere in the entire world?

The California landscape has some unique features that account for the opportunities that were seized upon by early settlers. The latitude of the great Central Valley ranges from about 35 degrees north to 40 degrees north, at least 350 miles in extent. This area just “happens” to coincide with the latitudes of the world where Mediterranean-type climates are dominant. Mediterranean climates are also referred to as “dry summer subtropical”. Dry, hot summers and moist, mild winters are characteristics of this climate type. Mediterranean climate was very different for emigrants from east of the Mississippi River and northern and central Europe, but very familiar to immigrants who came from southern France, Italy and Greece, Australia, and New Zealand.

Another blessing of fate is the alignment of the mountains of California. What do you think would be the effect of a hypothetical scenario where the Sierra and Cascade ranges were oriented east- west rather than north-south? Further, what if their altitude was only about that of the coast ranges or less? The fact is that these great mountain ranges are aligned generally north-south and in winter intercept the seasonal warm, moist, unstable air that has crossed the Pacific on its way east. The Sierra Nevada Mountains extend almost 400 miles forming the spine of California. These mountains join the Cascade Range in the Feather River Country of northern California and extend on into British Columbia. These two mountain ranges that extend for over 1,000 miles are of tremendous significance because of the moisture they intercept producing plentiful precipitation.

Precipitation in these mountains falls primarily in winter as rain and snow. Maximum precipitation at these latitudes tends to occur at an elevation between 5,000 ft. and 7,000 ft. above sea level. This is where another great coincidence occurs for California because the Sierra has a summit that is generally well over 7,000 ft. elevation! The result is that moisture bearing winds yield “Blue Gold” that is the life blood of so much of California’s economic wealth. Many places in the optimal altitude in both ranges yield water from heavy, sustained rains and snowfall that results in stored water atop mountain peaks that is released all summer long. Even the heat of summer in the Mediterranean climate is responsible for melt water available to agricultural areas, industrial and urban developments throughout much of California.

Unfortunately, occasionally in winter, the problem is too much water! Historic floods have plagued the valleys long before settlers and miners established new land uses. G.K. Gilbert, a scientist with the United States Geological Survey, pointed out early in the 20th century that the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers typically would overflow their natural levees during most winters. In fact, the natural levees are a product of flood waters leaving the channel for lower lying areas. Return flow to the rivers was slow and normally occurred by connecting channels often a considerable distance downstream. The basins outside the river bank would be filled with water producing ephemeral lakes that might last for days, weeks or, in some cases, many months.

The connection between flooding and climate becomes two-fold in this discussion. Storms that

6 produce plentiful moisture in the mountains frequently have short duration but at times are prolonged increasing the potential for flooding. The gradual rise of the mountains from the valley floor to the crest as much as 40 miles distant produces ample opportunity for heavy rain at lower elevations and deep snow accumulations at higher elevations. On occasion, the freezing level rises dramatically and rain may fall as high as the crest of the Sierra. The combination of plentiful precipitation and high elevation snow pack can produce widespread flooding in short order.

Early settlers who owned property, farms, and commercial interests responded to the threat of flooding, working by hand artificially increasing the height of the natural levees in the early 1850's in an attempt to contain flood waters within the channel. (California Delta History, http//www.californiadelta.org/history.htm.) Unfortunately, in the early days, there was limited equipment to accomplish the construction. Perhaps of even greater significance is that the materials used to augment the levees came from the river bed or surrounding area and were generally loose, unconsolidated sediments. In the Delta the levees were built from peat which was easily eroded or saturated, thereby rendering it unstable and susceptible to failure at times of high water. Levees today can be constructed with impervious cores, rip rap may be used to strengthen the banks and reduce the effect of flowing water on the levee and other adjustments to render them more effective.

Mining techniques had prepared large quantities of alluvial materials, soil and pulverized rock in the foothills and mountains and significant amounts of that material was moved into the streams and rivers in mining districts. These earth materials would in turn be transported to the valley where they were deposited in the river bed far downstream. In effect, the bed of the river was becoming higher than the surrounding area greatly increasing the destruction when a levee failed. More water collected in the basins than ever before and severe floods were very destructive.

During contemporary times the levees are often severely tested and failures may occur. Failures are understandable in view of that fact that there is an extensive network of levees along the lower river reaches and in the Delta. Some of the levees have been in place for well over a century. Massive amounts of capital would be required to rejuvenate the levee systems, replace those where needed, and to construct new barriers.

Another adjustment of recurring flood was to undertake flood control measures primarily in the construction of dams to impound water. Dams were multipurpose since stored water was also available for irrigation, then hydroelectric generation and finally for a myriad of other uses as time passed. Who would have thought that so much recreational activity of the 20th and 21st centuries would focus on reservoirs and streams whose flow was augmented from reservoirs? Many projects that led to irrigation were the basis for further development of California’s agricultural enterprises. My family was served by one of these projects in the Clarabelle District near Oakdale in Stanislaus County. Marginal agricultural land became reasonably productive if there was ample irrigation water in summer and if the soils were treated with proper fertilizers and other amendments.

Unfortunately, the public is often lulled into complacency by the effectiveness of projects to supply and control water. Dams with large impoundments for flood control and levees to maintain flood flows within stream channels were constructed as part of the overall plan for usage of this extremely valuable resource. Most of the sites suitable for major control projects have been built; and, hundreds of miles of levees have been constructed. Levees deteriorate over time and there is the need to constantly invest in their repair and the construction of new ones. This phase is extremely costly even when measured against the

7 possible destruction to life, limb, and property. California is faced with the common dilemma of investing in preventative measures, or re-investing in restoration following devastating floods.

In a summary statement regarding the floods of 1997, the U.S. Geological Survey indicated precipitation amounts of as much as 24 inches in one week resulted in flooding on major streams and disaster was declared in 43 of California’s counties. Saturated soils in the mountain stream basins and rapid snow melt caused very rapid flooding. “Flooding on large rivers, rather than small streams caused the most damage. The foothills of the Sierra Nevada and areas downstream of the foothills were hard hit, especially in the communities of Winton, Olivehurst, and Modesto. Flooding on large rivers was partially controlled by large flood-control reservoirs that had only moderate storage capacity available due to prior runoff. Levee failures on the Cosumnes, Mokelumne, Tuolumne, and Feather rivers caused widespread damage.” (http://ca.water.usgs.gov/archive/floods/flood97/).

The first levees constructed for flood protection for Marysville and other Yuba County locations began well over 100 years ago, probably as early as 1875 (http://www.ycwa.com/crntfld.htm.). The 1,375 square mile Yuba River Basin produced ten major floods in the county during the 20th century. (http://www.ycwa.com/yriv.htm.)

Harold Kruger, a staff writer for the Marysville Appeal-Democrat in June 2004, reported that an engineering study found that the Linda levee that failed in 1986 has “a high potential” to fail again. The 1986 failure resulted in the flooding of several thousand acres requiring the evacuation of 24,000 people and 3,000 homes were damaged. Aside from the mental anguish at the time there is continued social impact as people reconstruct their lives. In 2003, a state appeals court held the state was liable for flood- related losses which could total hundreds of millions of dollars.

In 1993, approvals were obtained for a development of 12,000 homes in the Lake Plumas area near Yuba City with several hundred to be constructed annually. That area has been flooded twice and a county supervisor was quoted as saying it was the county’s duty to improve flood control for the new residents, and “we owe it, more importantly, to people who have been flooded twice.” (Harold Kruger, Marysville-Appeal Democrat, May 22, 2004.)

The Kruger article also indicated a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report estimated a cost of approximately $225 million for levee work in Marysville and southern Yuba County. “The authorized project included levee modifications on 6.1 miles of the left bank of the Yuba River upstream of the confluence with the Feather River, 10 miles of levee on the left bank of the Feather River downstream of the confluence of the Yuba River and five miles of the Marysville ring levee.”

Sacramento is at the confluence of two great rivers, the American and the Sacramento. These streams that played such an important part in early California history were then unifiers for the region because of the opportunities they provided for commerce. However, in the 21st century, the rivers present a barrier different from that of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Transportation routes across the rivers are limited due to the expense of bridging waterways and protective levies align the rivers to reduce the effects of flooding. There have been instances in which the systems of levees have been stressed to capacity or beyond.

An example of the potential for grave danger to the Sacramento urban area from flooding is detailed in an article by Bill Lindelof in the Sacramento Bee. The article is published not only in the

8 An example of the potential for grave danger to the Sacramento urban area from flooding is detailed in an article by Bill Lindelof in the Sacramento Bee. The article is published not only in the newspaper but also in “Rivers of Fear; The Great California Flood of 1986" (Compiled by Bob Teets and Shelby Young, C.R. Publications, Inc., 805 East State Avenue, Terra also, WV 26764). A very powerful series of Pacific storms had produced copious amounts of precipitation in the Sierra Nevada with subsequent high runoff and flooding in lowland areas. In a situation such as this, there are several federal and state agencies that coordinate efforts to prepare the public for possible outcomes from natural hazards such as flooding.

On March 3, 1986, Thom Akeman wrote in the Sacramento Bee that the Sacramento River was stressing levees and, “threatened to break its levee along the Garden Highway, a breach that would have flooded 15,000 people who live in south Natomas, washed out Interstates 80 and 5, closed Sacramento Metropolitan Airport, and inundated the new Kings [Arco] Arena.” (Rivers of Fear, p.21.) Even more devastating was the potential that occurred on the American River. If the rain continued, according to Federal officials, and one more inch of rain fell in the basin feeding Folsom Lake, “...federal water managers were planning to break a levee on the bloated American River...” (Rivers of Fear, p.21.) If that action had occurred, there would have been thousands of homes and many thousands of people directly affected. One can only guess what the actual losses might have been. The loss of life would have been minimized by evacuation and warning of residents, but the loss of property potentially would have been staggering. Would you have liked to have been in the position of having to make such a decision?

Could this scenario be played out again? We believe so without a doubt. You will be able to make that judgment for yourself if you carefully read and study the materials that are presented in this book. The floods of 1861-1862 are assessed and reconstructed as to their magnitude. The Yuba River, which is a significant stream in the Sacramento system, draining a basin of over 1,200 square miles in the Sierra Nevada situated between the Feather River on the north and the American River on the south, has provided the basis for a case study. A series of storms in 1861 and 1862 produced record amounts of runoff from rivers throughout northern California.

Eyewitness accounts have been utilized to reconstruct the events in the Yuba Basin and to hypothesize the magnitude of flooding that resulted. That information is valuable in creating a scenario for the Sacramento River at Sacramento and leads us to believe that the potential for a devastating flood exists despite all the precautions that have been taken by governmental agencies. If we place ourselves in the shoes of governmental officials, it becomes apparent that it is easy to mitigate against high water that happens every year, less easily done for high water that occurs every quarter century and harder yet for the “flood of the century”. Now, try to place yourself in the role of officials who are trying to manage the effects of a flood that occurs only once in perhaps a few hundred years or longer! We are certain the floods of 1861-1862 are in this category. As ethereal as this may seem, now is the time to launch a concerted effort to mitigate against the ravaging effects of such a possibility. Reaction after tough and heart-wrenching decisions are made will not suffice for those who have lost property or loved ones in such an event!

9

CHAPTER I

A BRIEF HISTORY OF EARLY FLOODS

A review of the 19th century history of Northern and Central California indicates there were episodes of widespread flooding. Early records and diaries describe two such episodes:

The winter of 1826-27, when Jedediah S. Smith passed through California with his trapping party, the water rose so high in the Sacramento Valley that he was driven to the Marysville Buttes for a camping place, which he found teeming with elk, antelope and bear that had also sought refuge there. Fariss & Smith. History of Plumas, Lassen & Sierra Counties, California, 1882 (reprint of 1922 edition).Berkeley, CA: Howell-North Books, 1971.

The second episode occurred six years later:

John Work in 1832 led a party into California by way of the Pit River, down the Sacramento River, over to the Feather and Yuba Rivers, camping at the Marysville Buttes where he is (sic) marooned by floodwaters. The band of trappers, numbering 100 men, women and children was prevented from proceeding farther south along the slopes of the Sierra foothills by torrential rains and high water. An excursion to the American River resulted in Work’s determination to spend the winter at the Buttes. Work, John (1792-1861). Maloney, Alice Bay, ed. Fur Brigade to the Bonaventura: John Work’s California Expedition 1832-33, for The Hudson’s Bay Company. San Francisco: California Historical Society, 1945.

Another diary entry by Work on Saturday, December 29th states:

The bute (Sutter Buttes) is almost completely surrounded with water and where there is a little spot of dry ground it is so soft that the horses bog in it.

According to the diary, on eleven days during the month of December (prior to the 29th), heavy rain was reported some time during each 24 hour period. No wonder the buttes were almost surrounded by water.

Other Flood Events prior to and immediately following the discovery of gold

The annals of the Hudson Bay Company showed that the year 1818 was one of excessive storms and tremendous floods. (Fariss & Smith).

Flood of 1839-40 in Sacramento Valley:

The Winter of 1839-40 was a severe one in California, an immense quantity of rain falling. It

11 poured down for forty days and nights, with but little cessation. Old Domingo Peralta (who lived in the East Bay), who had come across the Bay to Yerba Buena with his family, in a boat, to obtain supplies, was caught here and obliged to remain several weeks, stopping at Spear’s house with his large family of ten or twelve persons until he could re-cross the Bay to get home.

After Capt. Sutter had established himself in the Sacramento Valley he sent a boat to Yerba Buena (now San Francisco) about once in two weeks for the purpose of obtaining supplies for his station, Spear being his agent. During the prolonged storms of this year the whole country was flooded and we didn’t hear from Capt. Sutter for more than a month. At last a boat made its appearance, bringing a letter from him in which he described the country as one vast expanse of water. Among the stories he mentioned was one of seeing the deer, elk and other animals crowded together in large numbers on every little prominence which appeared above the waters to protect themselves from being carried away by the flood.

Davis, William Heath(1822-1909). Seventy-five Years in California. 3rd ed. San Francisco: J. Howell Books, 1967.

A letter written by General John Bidwell, founder of Chico, California, to James A. Barwick, Signal Service, Sacramento, California dated January 21, 1884, briefly describes the earlier seasonal weather, beginning in 1841-42 through 1849-50. (The present location of Bidwell’s letter to Barwick is unknown to the authors):

1841-42 - The winter was one of numerous and great inundations (fully equal to 1849-50)

1845-46 - Very wet; floods and inundations.

1849-50 - Very wet (but this comes within the historic period, which is unnecessary for me to repeat.)

Additional information on the 1845-46 season mentioned above appeared in the Sacramento Union of Tuesday, February 26, 1878, pg. 3, col. 1:

What a Pioneer Has Seen: J.W. Marshall, the discoverer of gold in California, is paying the city a visit. Yesterday a reporter of the Record-Union interviewed him on the question of high water. Mr. Marshall stated that a flood occurred in 1845-46 which covered all the Indian mounds in the Sacramento Valley, and was so high that the water came within 2 ft. of entering Sutters (sic) Fort. He estimates that if Sacramento as it stands at present, had been in existence then, the water would have been 4 or 5 ft. at least above the high grade.

An Extra edition of the newspaper Alta California (Monday, Jan. 14, 1850) recaps and describes the Flood of 1849-50 in the Sacramento Valley and states there was “immense destruction of property.” The following is a summary of the Extra edition highlights:

The deplorable catastrophe which has befallen the thriving and populous city of Sacramento, now completely submerged by the water of the river of the same name, can but excite our liveliest sympathies, and we hasten to place the fullest particulars before the public in the shape of an Extra.

12 The description of the flood in the city of Sacramento begins on January 10, 1850: This will be a day never to be forgotten by the residents of Sacramento City as a day that awoke their fears for the safety of their city against the dangers of a flood long since prophesied.

Saturday (January 12, 1850): As far as the eye could reach the scene had now become one of wild and fearful import – floating lumber, bales and cases of goods, boxes and barrels, tents and small houses were floating in every direction. The poor and suffering beasts were in a pitiable condition and called forth the sympathy of all, and what could be done to save them. Hundreds of horses, mules and oxen were wandering about seeking places of security and food. Many, very many, must have perished. Some gained places of safety by swimming a mile or more to the high bluff back of the city. It was indeed sad to hear their low and plaintive bellowing, as it told of their approaching death by cold and starvation; some were fed by the warm hearted and the humane as they came near to the dwellings, asking by their looks for food.

Saturday Evening (January 12,1850): the scene presented to view from this main top was wild in the extreme – a vast lake of waters. Here and there only the tops of a tree or the clumps of trees, were visible beyond the city for miles in extent, even to Sutter’s Fort – nought but the rush of waters. Two high bluffs were indeed seen above water, far to the right of the Fort; and here was presented a most thrilling sight. The highest point of the bluff was crowned with tents, and from thence, down to the water’s edge, was seen a dense mass of men, horses and cattle, promiscuously mixed, all seeking safety by a rapid flight from the flood and to these mountains of hope. The pictures we sometimes see of the Deluge might give one an idea of what could have been witnessed upon these bluffs, as they appeared that Saturday at sunset. News also came to the city that the waters had risen to the Fort, and that the hospital had two and a half feet of water on the floor.

Sunday Morning (January 13, 1850): the Sacramento this morning was still more rapid, and the floating wrecks that swept by only portended greater ruin still. The rush of passengers to the noble steamer, Senator, as the morning opened, also told that there were many who were compelled to find a home elsewhere, and others, who fled from the these scenes of danger and suffering. The Senator remained nearly two hours beyond her time, to accommodate those who were desirous to take passage. She came down the river very rapidly, yet steadily and safely, and landed her passengers at 5 P.M. accomplishing her trip in 8 hours. As we came down, we could see all along the banks for 20 mi., clustering groups of cattle and deer, gathering upon the highest points of land, hoping to escape the almost certain death that awaited them. Here too, were seen houses and tents floating amid the trees and drift, deserted by their occupants – and where but a few weeks since they stood upon high banks that bade us look upward as we sailed up this wonderful river. Altogether the scenes witnessed are strange as they are wonderful, and sad as they are strange – no such flood having occurred for nearly 30 years. As near as can be estimated the rise of water is 6 ft. within the city and the river has risen 25 to 30 ft.

Accounts of the Flood of March 1852

SACRAMENTO

Sacramento Union (Sunday [Midday], March 7th): A calamity which threatens to be as disastrous as that which was visited upon this city in January 1850, is again renewed, and as we write we fear that the ravages of the liquid element will prove even more destructive than during that “reign of terror.” At 1 o’clock this morning, the alarm bell aroused our citizens from their slumbers, and the 13

streets were filled with men rushing to the scene of disaster, which proved to be the levee near the mouth of the American River. The embankment at the sluice gate had caved in, and the waters were slowly oozing through the porous soil of which the levee is composed. The immediate cause of this rupture is attributable to the sudden rise of the American River, the waters of which were rushing with tremendous force against the levee at this point.

Sacramento Union (Sunday Evening, March 7th): the question naturally arises with many, how this flood compares in severity with that of 1850. As regards the loss of property there is no comparison, owing principally that the citizens were this year forewarned, and consequently enabled to ensure themselves to a great degree against the encroachment of the subtle fluid. The levee too, although not sufficiently strong to resist the rushing tide of waters, is a great protection to many parts of the town. The Sacramento River has risen above its natural bank, but the top of the artificial embankment is still 3 ft. higher than that stream. The water has not entered the stores of many flooded in 1850, and from all that we can learn, it is not within 2 ft. of being as high as on the 8th of January of that year. If we are so fortunate to be spared warm rains or hot sun, we can safely rest assured that the worst is over, and that the damage after all will not prove really as serious as was anticipated a few days since.

Sacramento Union (March 20, 1852): The Freshet at Nevada [City] - Through Mr. H. Clay Hall, who arrived in this city yesterday from Nevada via Marysville, we learn that Nevada has also suffered from the effects of the late rains. On Friday morning the theater* and a bridge house were washed away. Deer Creek had attained a height unprecedented in the recollection of the oldest residents. The stage which left for Marysville on Friday morning, succeeded in getting through as far as Linda, about 4 mi. above. The passengers from thence waded to Marysville arriving there about 8 o’clock on Sunday evening.

* The theater referred to is the famous Jenny Lind Theater. According to the Nevada Journal ( Saturday evening, March 6, 1852, pg. 3, col. 1), “during the night (of the 5th) a heavy drift log came in contact with the wooden pillars on which it stood, taking some of them away and materially disturbing the others.” Then about noon (on the 6th), another heavy log came floating down Deer Creek and finished the job. As the theater settled down into the current, “almost instantly it was a total wreck.”

LINDA

Sacramento Union (March 20, 1852): The town of Linda, situated on the Feather river about 4 mi. above Marysville, is entirely submerged; there being about 4 ft. of water over the Yuba bottom, from Marysville up to Bropy’s ranch. Two men were drowned at Linda on Friday, in endeavoring to swim a slough with their mules.

MARYSVILLE

Nevada Journal (Saturday evening, March 13, 1852, pg. 2, col. 3): From mail, we have received the Marysville Herald of the 9th. — On Saturday night (the 6th), the water was 3 ft. higher than in the winter of ‘49. Scarcely a place under cultivation near Marysville but what is so much washed as to render the labor up (to) this time a total loss. A large number of cattle have been swept away from the ranches. 14

STEEP HOLLOW

Nevada Journal (Thursday morning, March 11, 1852, pg. 2, col.1): From the following correspondence, we are led to believe that some of our neighbors just over the hill, are in rather close quarters: Steep Hollow, March 8th, 1852, Eds. Journal — We have had four successive days of snow last week commencing on the 29th of February. The Snow averaging about five and a half feet on the first bench of the ridge; several attempts were made to go to Nevada, but all failed. On (Wednesday) the 3rd it turned to rain which continued till (Sunday) the 7th; it took off most of the snow. The creek is 8 ft. higher than usual. Today the rain has turned to snow again, and no prospect of fine weather. There is about 25 men and one mule in the canyon. We have about 1,000 lbs. of flour, 200 lbs. of ham and 100 lbs. of pork. We saw 2 or 3 men who did come down while it was raining, during which time most of the snow went off, but as it commenced snowing again soon after we know not whether or not they succeeded in getting back. (See Plate IV for location of Steep Hollow.)

EUREKA

Nevada Journal (Saturday evening, March 20, 1852, pg 2, col. 2): Correspondence of The Journal (Eureka, March 17, 1852 – from a Mr. Young): Eureka is situated between the South and Middle Forks of Poor Man’s Creek, 12 mi. from Washington and 35 mi. north of Nevada (City). On Saturday the 28th (of February) the storm began, and it snowed incessantly night and day. –- On Friday the 5th instant the snow was over 4 ft. deep. It then commenced raining, and continued for two days carrying the snow off to about 10 in., when for a variety, the snow commenced falling again on Monday night, it fell to the depth of 3 ft. in five hours.

Conditions in the Mountains, Winter of 1851-52 - From Albert Dressler’s Book, California’s Pioneer Mountaineer of Rabbit Creek

PAGE 17:

RABBIT CREEK REGION COVERED WITH FIFTEEN FEET OF SNOW DURING WINTER OF 1851-1852. Snow in abundance quickly fell in the latter part of Nov. 1851, and by Christmas almost every cabin in the Rabbit Creek section was out of site (sic).

After Christmas the windows had to be boarded up, as the snow was falling faster than it could be shoveled away. The result was that their dwelling place was in darkness, and the candle supply being exhausted, the only source of light was the fireplace.

Note: Although the town of Rabbit Creek had changed its name, in 1857, to LaPorte, the majority of the residents and outsiders stuck to the town’s original name ( pg. 57).

Dressler, Albert. California’s Pioneer Mountaineer of Rabbit Creek. San Francisco: A. Dressler, 1930.

15

Flood of December-January 1852-53

Specific information on this particular flood event is hard to come by, but the History of Sacramento County (housed at the California State Library), Chapter XV, pg. 109, does contain a few highlights on the flood in and around Sacramento:

December 19,1852, a break occurred in the levee and on the American River, between Stuart’s and the “Ridge.” By the morning following the business portion of the city was submerged to a depth of several inches, but the water [has] since subsided, but little damage being done by it.

The city was again completely flooded January 1, 1853. The water of the Sacramento River was 22 ft. above low water mark and 2 ft. higher than during the great flood of 1850. Boats were again in great demand and New Year’s calls were made in them. But the trade, although profitable, was brief, many of the boats being stranded by the quickly-receding waters. While but little damage was done in the city, the county and those adjoining it suffered considerable destruction of property and the incidental discomfort suffering. The city now passed an ordinance for the improvement of the river levees.

For additional details on early flooding in and around Sacramento, see History of Sacramento County, Chapter XV.

An examination of The Hydrography, Meteorology & Hyetography of Sacramento, Cal. By Thomas M. Logan, M.D. for the years 1849 to 1862, substantiates the above information. It clearly indicates there was significant flooding in Sacramento beginning shortly after the middle of December1852. In fact, the graph showing the seasonal oscillations of the Sacramento River suggests a gage height second only to those produced by the infamous floods of 1861-62. An examination of early rainfall records for San Francisco also supports Dr. Logan’s work. San Francisco’s total rainfall in December 1852 was 13.20". This measurement was recorded at No. 508 Battery St. By Thomas Tennant, Chronometer and Watchmaker. Mr. Tennant’s records covered the period from 1849 to 1870, and this was the second highest rainfall amount for the month of December during the 22 year span. According to the records kept in Sacramento by Dr. Logan, 36.36" of rain fell during the 1852-53 season — more than any other season from 1849-50 through 1861-62.

An early newspaper account in the Sacramento Union (December 10, 1861) states:

This is the fourth flood to which Sacramento has been subjected since 1849; one in the winter of 1850, second in 1851*, third December 1852, which was renewed on (the) 31st of same month. But – Sacramentans never despair. They have risen superior to all the misfortunes by fire and flood, as they will above this when time has been given to recuperate.

*Dr. Logan’s chart of the seasonal oscillations of the Sacramento River show that the second flood in Sacramento (since 1849) did not occur in 1851. Instead, Dr. Logan’s chart and a number of newspaper articles indicate that it occurred in March 1852.

The following is an interesting, first-hand account of the flood of January 10, 1850, excerpted from the letters of Samuel W. Brown written from Sacramento to his wife in Hartford, Connecticut. The letter is part of the Samuel W. Brown Papers located at the California Historical Society in San Francisco, 16 Jan. 11th. This is the last day which I shall have to write by this mail and I improve it by saying that the water did not rise much after my last date (10th) but it continues to flow over the city with a continued destruction of property, etc.

Jan. 12th . I have one more day to write on account of the soon arrival of the steamer from San Francisco and will this evening close my letter. The day like the two past, has been one of confusion on board and of more than confusion in the city life suffering. Provisions all destroyed but what is on board the ships. We have as many boarders and lodgers as we can accommodate by setting the table 3 times each meal – from $3 to $5 each for lodging and from 5 to 10 for board and no grumbling — Our receipts must be $1000 a day — Hundreds of cattle and mules are standing on the banks of the river in the shallow places famished for want of food until they can stand no more and lie down and die and the carcass of those which have thus perished are lying in every direction partly covered by the water. It is pitiful to see the poor beasts struggling to keep their heads a little longer above the flood and then despairingly yield to their fate and let them sink beneath the wave. We sent our own mules to the high land in a scow at an expense of $15 per head where they will find pasturage and rest. Today the sky is cloudless and the sun shines brightly on the scene of desolation and as I afford a hope that the water will before many days subside. There is still much snow upon the mountains and it would not be surprising if the rains should continue to send down its torrents for a month to come. Your affectionate husband — S. W. Brown

17

CHAPTER II

THE SEARCH FOR INFORMATION: Leon Hunsaker

As was explained in the preface, because of the lack of adequate stream flow data for 19th century floods, it was decided to use an indirect approach to evaluate flood potential on the Yuba River Watershed. A model was chosen (see Diagram A, between Chapters 3 and 4) which utilizes the two major components that determine runoff. The contribution of the storm and the contribution of the watershed. This gave us a guide to follow and helped us zero in on the type of data needed to evaluate flood potential.

During many trips to libraries, newspaper offices, historical societies, and various other public and private sources, we would attempt to fill the different categories, shown in Diagram A, on our list of major historical floods in Northern California. This list was compiled by searching early government publications published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the State of California, and other sources. Walter Parsons, an engineer with the Army Corps of Engineers, was kind enough to share the results of his years of research on historical floods in Northern and Central California. I met with Walt in Sacramento in the early 1960s, and was able to get off to a fast start. He not only helped me compile a list of major storms and floods, but also named a number of excellent sources of information. I remember Walt saying that the flood of December-January 1861-1862 was the greatest flood in Northern California and that December 1867 was the greatest flood in Central California.

With the help of David Madruga, my history major aide, we began gathering the necessary storm and watershed information called for in Diagram A. We soon learned that copies of old newspapers were the best source and that the state library in Sacramento, the Bancroft Library in Berkeley, and the Nevada City Library had rather extensive files of old newspapers. I also spent several hot summer afternoons in the attic of the Grass Valley National newspaper searching for storm and watershed information. We visited other libraries in Marysville, Oroville, Quincy, and Auburn. In addition, we contacted private sources and were able to obtain the original weather records for Bowman Dam and the Malakoff Mine. These records proved to be invaluable in our analysis of major floods prior to 1900, and will eventually be donated to the Malakoff Mine Museum, in North Bloomfield, California.

A number of field trips were made during the early 1960s. We visited Nelson Point on the middle fork of the Feather River south of Quincy, Freeman’s Bridge on the middle fork of the Yuba River near Downieville, Bowman Dam, Malakoff Mine, and other points of interest in the Grass Valley/Nevada City area. LaPorte and Graniteville were a couple of the higher elevation communities that we visited. Lester G. Poage, long-time resident of Graniteville and Ernest K. Murray, PG&E Co. Local District Manager in Quincy, were most helpful.

The search for old records took some interesting twists and turns. Eliza Kilroy, then 19 president of the Nevada County Historical Society, recommended I talk with Dorothy Wagoner, daughter of W.W. Wagoner, a county engineer and a statistician for the South Yuba Canal Company. Evidently, near the end of large scale mining that involved sluice ways and the use of large water hoses, mining companies with mountain reservoirs were exploring the feasibility of selling water to cities and towns in the valley. W.W. Wagoner was in charge of one of the feasibility studies, and had collected meteorological records from various local sources, including the South Yuba Canal Company.

By the time we appeared on the scene, Dorothy Wagoner had passed along the records to other interested parties in the area. We obtained several names of people who had received records from Dorothy and hit the jackpot right away! We were able to secure from Ernest A. Bailey, a consulting engineer, the original Bowman Dam and Malakoff Mine meteorological records.

Another set of records from the South Yuba Canal Company was acquired by a fellow of Scandinavian descent – Sven Skaar. When we tried to contact him, he wasn’t to be found. He was on an extended vacation in Scandinavia and wouldn’t be back until fall. I contacted Mr. Skaar shortly after his return only to learn that he had given the records to the California Historical Society in San Francisco before leaving on his trip. A wee bit frustrating when you consider the records we were looking for were only four or five blocks away from our office on Market Street in San Francisco.

The next day, David Madruga and I had extra bounce in our steps as we walked through the entrance to the California Historical Society. We introduced ourselves and asked to see the records Sven Skaar had donated to the Society. The person who waited on us excused himself while he did some checking. In a few minutes he returned and informed us the material we were interested in was still in the shipping boxes.

Next thing we knew, we were talking to the person in charge – “Mr. X”. He informed us that it would be at least another year before they would unpack the boxes they had received from Mr. Skaar. Our offer to help fell on deaf ears – we were not professionals. Then I offered to pay to have the boxes unpacked by professionals of his choice. His reply still rings in my ears – “Sorry, you will just have to wait! One time I had to wait 18 months before the National Archives in Washington D.C. would unpack an item I wanted to look over.”

On our way back to the office, I couldn’t help but feel that “Mr. X” enjoyed telling me we’d have to wait a year – maybe longer. The bottom line: we needed to know if there was some December-January 1861-1862 weather data from the South Yuba Canal Company in any of those boxes.

I made a few inquiries around the company and found out that one of our vice presidents knew a member of the California Historical Society’s governing board. The vice president followed through, and it wasn’t long until we were invited to pay the California Historical Society a return visit. I mistakenly assumed the skids were greased – but soon learned otherwise.

20 As we walked through the entrance to the Historical Society’s offices, “Mr. X”, in a loud voice, gave me a first-rate dressing down in front of over a dozen other people. He ranted and raved for about five minutes or so, vowing he would never bow to pressure, but soon accepted my offer to pay for unpacking the boxes.

Two or three days later, we came back to inspect the contents of the boxes. It turned out to be a huge disappointment because a fire in Nevada City in 1863 had destroyed most of the town, including any meteorological records that may have been kept by the South Yuba Canal Company. You win one, you lose one.

Another excellent source for identifying historical flood producing storms was the book by W.T. Ellis, My Seventy-Two Years In The Romantic County of Yuba, California. It has been more than 40 years ago, but I still remember the day I visited the Marysville Library and asked to see the book, along with other W.T. Ellis memorabilia. They seated me at a desk and had an assistant librarian stand over me the whole time (approximately one hour) while I examined the Ellis material. The information contained in his book was of considerable help in our analysis of the significant “high water events” that occurred between 1863 and 1903.

Not all of the information on storms and floods was collected in the 1960s. As a consultant for both private parties and the State of California, I continued to collect data on floods in the region. My records indicate in the 1970s I visited the Shasta County Library in the Redding/Red Bluff area as well as a library in Visalia, south of Fresno, for the purpose of gathering storm and flood information.

21

CHAPTER III

YUBA WATERSHED SNOW PROFILES FOR 1861-62 FLOOD EVENTS

(For Map, see Plate IV “Yuba River Basin”)

It’s time to organize the snow information and come up with snow (depth vs. elevation) profiles for the 1861-1862 flood events. The first flood in the series had a high water date (HWD) of December 9, 1861. We want to know the depth of the snow pack at various elevations before the flood-producing storms get underway. In an attempt to standardize our analysis procedures we have (where possible) come up with snow (depth vs. elevation) profiles that are valid four days prior to the HWD of the flood in the vicinity of Marysville.

Profile 1 is a snow (depth vs. elevation) profile for the Yuba Watershed for December 5, 1861–four days ahead of the HWD of the first flood event. The various notations on Profile 1 refers to the source of the information. For example, looking at Grass Valley on November 17-- it shows a snow depth of approximately four inches. The instructions on Profile 1 say see Section A1. This refers to Supplement 1-A, Section A1, which gives the November 19, 1861 issue of the Grass Valley National newspaper under the caption FIRST SNOW – a full four inches fell on Saturday night.

You might ask if an assumed settlement rate of three inches per day, as stated in Section D4 of Supplement 1-A, is reasonable. Admittedly, a number of assumptions were made prior to arriving at a final snow (depth vs. elevation) profile for December 5, 1861. An eye-witness account of snow pack conditions immediately after the warm storm suggest that the snow depth assumptions made prior to the storm were realistic (see Supplement 1-A, Section A11). In addition, review Table A, “Snow Pack Depletion During Heavy Warm Storms.” Bottom Line: After the storm there was very little, if any, snow left on the summit in the vicinity of Henness Pass–elevation just under 7,000 ft. This report is consistent with our estimated snow depths four days prior to the HWD.

Profile 2 is a snow (depth vs. elevation) profile for the Yuba Watershed for January 7, 1862 – four days ahead of the HWD of Flood Event #2. Once again, look over the various notations on Profile 2. These notations refer to the source of the information. For example, looking at Eureka and the ridge above Omega (elevation approximately 5,000 ft.), the depth of the snow was three feet on the 6th and was assumed to settle eight inches to a depth of 28 inches th by the 7 . The source of this information is listed in Supplement 1-B, Section A2 and Section C3a. Section A5 discusses the use of stage coaches in the 4,000 ft. to 5,000 ft. elevation range on January 4. This was just prior to the heavy snow storm of January 5 and early January 6, indicating there was very little snow left on the ground from previous storms. 23 Profile 3 is a snow (depth vs. elevation) profile for the Yuba Watershed for January 18, 1862 –four days prior to the high water date (HWD) of Flood Event #3. Again, the notations on the diagram refer to the source of the information. For example, the source of the report indicating there was three feet of snow in LaPorte is listed under Section A1 in Supplement 1-C. Section A8 states that the storm was basically over by 7:00 pm, January 22, 1862, and that very little rain fell after 7:00 pm. See Figure 1, Daily Precipitation Graph for Grass Valley.

NOTE: The adjustment that was made on the Daily Precipitation Graph.

24

CHAPTER IV

MAIN FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO RUNOFF

“BURST” PRECIPITATION

“Burst” precipitation is defined as the heaviest consecutive three (3) days of precipitation including the high water date (HWD) of the flood producing storm. In this study, we have used Grass Valley, a lower elevation station (2,700 ft.) and Lake Spaulding, a middle elevation station (5,150 ft.). Grass Valley is the only mountain station with a nearly complete record of rainfall during the December-January 1861-1862 storm series. We say nearly complete (see Figure 1) because there are several instances where the total amount of precipitation that falls during a period of three or four days is known, but how much fell on each individual day is unknown.

An example of what we’re talking about occurred at the end of December 1861 (refer again to Figure 1). The almost three inches of precipitation shown on the 29th was the total amount that fell from the 27th through the 31st. In other words, the daily distribution of the precipitation is unknown. A reasonable estimate of the daily distribution of precipitation is possible by prorating the amount (almost three inches) according to the daily precipitation amounts that fell in Sacramento. (See Figure 2). There is little doubt that the precipitation that fell at Grass Valley during this period came down in the form of rain. The daily mean temperatures in Sacramento were in the 52 degree to 55 degree Fahrenheit range. (See Figure 3). This would indicate that any snowfall in the mountains was occurring above 5,000 ft.

Lake Spaulding precipitation “bursts” were estimated using a graph based upon the historical relationship between the three heaviest consecutive days of precipitation recorded at Grass Valley and Lake Spaulding. (See Figure 4). Only three-day bursts from heavy warm storms were used to develop this relationship.

The storm “burst” for the first flood-producing storm December 6-9, 1861 in Grass Valley was 14.01 inches. Using the graph (Figure 4), find 14 inches on the scale along the left-hand side of the graph. Then follow the line across until it intersects with the diagonal black line representing the “burst” precipitation relationship between Grass Valley and Lake Spaulding. Directly below this point is the estimated “burst” precipitation for Lake Spaulding – slightly more than 20 inches. Estimates of Lake Spaulding “burst” precipitation for the second and third flood producing storms of the 1861-1862 series were handled the same way.

Figure 5 is a bar graph that compares the “burst” precipitation for the six greatest floods of the 20th century on the Yuba Watershed with the legendary December-January 1861-1862 series. There were some apparent measurement problems at Lake Spaulding in January 1909. As a result an estimate was made using Figure 4. The results will be discussed later on when the overall findings in this book are summarized. 27 YUBA WATERSHED SNOW COVER -– PRIOR TO PRECIPITATION BURST

Snow (depth vs. elevation) profiles were developed not only for the 1861-1862 flood events but for all of the major floods of the 20th century on the Yuba Watershed. Knowing the percentage of watershed area in each 1,000 ft. interval is important (see Appendix Table C). Now you are able to use this information along with the depth data taken from the snow profiles and estimate the percentage of the watershed covered by snow in different depth vs. elevation ranges.

It works this way. If we want to know how much of the Yuba Watershed was covered by snow in the ten-inch to 40-inch depth range, prior to the HWD, choose a snow profile and proceed as follows: In December 1964 (see Profile 7), the depth of the snow was ten inches at 5,000 ft. elevation. The 40-inch snow depth line was much higher–6,650 ft. Turning to Table C, 58% of the watershed area is below 5,000 ft. and 85% of the watershed is below 6,650 ft. Then subtract 58% from 85% and the answer is 27%. Approximately 27% of the watershed was covered with snow in the ten-inch to 40-inch range (see Figure 6). The importance of snow in this depth range is discussed in Chapter VI.

There are two more graphs that deal with snow. One is the elevation of the 40-inch snow depth line along with the percent of the watershed covered by snow more than 40 inches deep–which was 15% in December 1964 (see Figure 7). The other graph gives an approximation (percentage) of how much watershed area is left below the snow line (see Figure 8). Another way of saying it; this is how much bare ground you have. On January 7, 1862, less than 15% of the watershed was void of snow.

WATERSHED PRIME AND STORM TEMPERATURE

One of the key components that can affect the magnitude of the runoff from a watershed is called prime (see Figure 9). How well the soil on the watershed is primed depends upon how much antecedent precipitation has fallen prior to the onset of a potential flood-producing storm. The Columbus Day storm of October 1962 was one of the most destructive storms to hit Northern California and the Pacific Northwest in over 100 years. It produced high winds and heavy rain right to the summit of the Sierra. The three day “burst” (precipitation) totals on the Yuba Watershed were phenomenal. Here are a few samples: Grass Valley, 18.18 inches; Nevada City, 19.04 inches; and Strawberry Valley, 24.27 inches.

Even with all this rain, the October 1962 storm failed to produce a major flood on the Yuba Watershed, because the soil was bone dry. Since the beginning of the season (September 1), only. 0.35 inches of precipitation had fallen in Grass Valley ahead of the main storm. Figure 9 is an indicator of how well the Yuba Watershed was primed 31 days prior to the nine major flood-producing storms included in this study.

28 The temperature of the atmosphere during a storm is what determines the elevation of the snow line. Also, in cases where it rains to the summit there is usually a substantial contribution to the runoff by melting snow from the existing snow pack. Another way of stating it; other things being equal the warmer the storm the greater the amount of snow melt (see Figure 10). You will note I have added one and one-half degrees to the Sacramento weighted mean temperature* for the 1860s to help compensate for warming due to urban growth. This is a rough estimate on our part–it may actually be more than one and one-half degrees.

* Indicates that the mean temperature on days with heavier amounts of precipitation was given extra consideration.

29

CHAPTER V

INFORMATION USED IN ESTIMATING STREAM FLOWS 1861-62

HEAVIEST 52 CONSECUTIVE DAYS OF RUNOFF ON THE YUBA RIVER AT SMARTVILLE

A fifty two day period was chosen because that is the interval of time between the beginning and end of the legendary 1861-62 flood period. It began on December 6, 1861, and ended on January 26, 1862. By choosing a fifty two day period, it is possible to make a ball park type comparison between the runoff from this epic 19th century flood and the six major floods of the 20th century.

The stream flow data used to construct the graphs depicting fifty two consecutive days of runoff for the 20th century floods comes from the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System (see Graphs 2 through 7). As has been pointed out before, the daily runoff values for the 52 day 1861-62 flood period were estimated by the authors (Graph 1).

All flows for 20th century floods on the Yuba River at Smartville are altered to some degree by storage (refer back to Preface). Up until the new Bullards Bar Reservoir (capacity 950,000 acre ft.) came on line in 1969, the runoff from these major floods was of such magnitude that the effect of existing storage on runoff was comparatively minor. Currently 150,000 acre ft. at New Bullards Bar Reservoir is available for flood control. We do not know how much of an ameliorative effect this storage facility had on the February 1986 and the January 1997 flood events! However, we did adjust the flows at Smartville for storage during both of these events. This was done to make the 52 day flows for February 1986 and January 1997 more compatible with the other 52 day flow periods prior to 1969.

USING THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS’ 2002 FLOOD FLOW REPORT

Several years ago, the Corps of Engineers published a comprehensive report on annual maximum rain flood flows (unregulated conditions) for the principal rivers in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river Basins. After reviewing this most ambitious and impressive report, we decided to make use of their unregulated flow computations for the Yuba River near Marysville. These data are available for almost all of the 20th century – 1904 through 1997.

Annual computations include the heaviest mean flow for a single day and the heaviest flows for consecutive 3, 7,15 and 30 day periods.* We chose the heaviest 15 consecutive days of runoff to use in the book because of the short interval between the two major floods in January 1862. There were only 11 days between the HWD (high water dates) of these two events (see Graph 1).

31 To keep our comparison between the 1861-62 flood series and the six major flood events of the 20th century consistent, we once again used a 52 day period – thirty two (32) days prior to the heaviest 15 consecutive days of runoff and 5 days after (see Figure 11). The significance of these results will be summarized in Chapter VIII.

* These mean flows are expressed in average cubic feet per second per day.

METHODS USED TO ESTIMATE DAILY MEAN FLOW ON THE YUBA RIVER AT SMARTVILLE DECEMBER 1861 AND JANUARY 1862

Three major floods occurred in a span of six and one half weeks. We estimate that these three flood events accounted for approximately 80% of the runoff observed on the Yuba River at Smartville during this period of time.

EVENT #1 (December 7-12, 1861): Stream flow data from the major flood of December 1955 were used to help estimate the mean daily flows for this flood event. See Figure 6, and compare watershed snow conditions. Also refer to Figure 5. Note the similarity in the magnitude of the burst precipitation. Review snow (depth vs. elevation), Profiles 1 and 6.

Date Estimated Daily Mean Flow Source of Data for Estimate- Yuba River at Smartville

Dec. 7, 1861 23,114 cfs Flow for Dec. 21, 1955 Dec. 8, 1861 103,600 cfs Flow for Dec. 22, 1955 Dec. 9, 1861 (HWD) 127,650 cfs Flow for Dec. 23, 1955 (HWD)

NOTE: December 1955 flow data is no longer used after the 9th because the weather turned dry in 1861 — but it kept raining off and on in 1955. As a result, after December 9th, the daily flows were reduced at approximately the same rate that occurred following the peak flows produced by the “high water events” of December 1937 and January-February 1963 (see Table B). These two events were chosen because little or no rain fell for a week or 10 days after the peak flows were reached.

Dec. 10, 1861 42,125 cfs Dec. 11, 1861 21,062 cfs Dec. 12, 1861 13,901 cfs

Sum of estimated Daily Flows Dec. 7-12, 1861 = 331,452 cfs Converted to acre ft. = 656,275 acre feet

32

EVENT #2 (January 9-14, 1862): Stream flow data from the major flood of December 1964 were used to help estimate the mean daily flows for this flood event. See Figure 6, and compare watershed snow conditions. Also refer to Figure 5. Note the similarity in the magnitude of the burst precipitation. Review snow (depth vs. elevation), Profiles 2 and 7.

Date Estimated Daily Mean Flow Source of Data for Estimate- Yuba River at Smartville

Jan 9, 1862 37,150 cfs Flow for Dec. 21, 1964 Jan 10, 1862 120,810 cfs Flow for Dec. 22, 1964 Jan. 11, 1862 (HWD) 125,630 cfs Flow for Dec. 23, 1964 (HWD) Jan. 12, 1862 80,617 cfs Flow for Dec. 24, 1964 Jan. 13, 1862 40,308 cfs See comments below Jan. 14, 1862 19,837 cfs See comments below Sum of estimated Daily Flows Jan. 9-14, 1862 = 424,352 cfs Converted to acre ft. = 840,216 acre feet

Precipitation kept falling in December 1964 after the HWD of December 23rd. However, it did taper off after the 23rd. Most of the 1.62 inches of precipitation reported at Grass Valley on December 24th very likely fell on the 23rd because the observation time for the 24-hour period ended at 8 a.m. Therefore, the decreases in flow that occurred between December 23-24, 1964, and between January 11- 12, 1862, were assumed to be similar. This suggests that the flow for Dec. 24, 1964 of 80,617 cfs could be used as the estimate for January 12, 1862.

Since no precipitation was recorded at Grass Valley on January 13, 1862, and only .09 of an inch fell on the 12th, a 50% drop-off rate was used to estimate the flow for January 13th. Refer again to Table B. Note the similarity in the rate of drop-off in flow on the second day after the HWDs of December 1937 and January-February 1963 — 48% and 52% respectively.

The flow estimate for January 14, 1862 is more complex. Several different items need to be addressed. Snow melt was an issue in both the December 1964 storm and the first major storm of January 1862. Next, you need to take into account the drop-off in precipitation following the peak flow on January 11th. The flow for the third day (January 5) following the HWD of January 2, 1997 was chosen as a match for January 14, 1862. This choice was made because of snow melt and the drop-off in precipitation follwing the HWD. However, the 1.42 inches of precipitation that fell at Grass Valley on January 14, 1862 needs to be considered.

NOTE: The flow (19,837cfs) at Smartville on January 5, 1997 was adjusted using daily inflow and outflow records from the New Bullard Bar reservoir.

Beginning with the Sacramento mean temperature of 45 degrees for January 14, 1862, and assuming a wet adiabatic lapse rate* of 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit per thousand feet, the elevation of the 34 degree isotherm is approximately 3,100 ft.

Note: The temperature at the snow line is assumed to be at or near 34 degrees.

33

Because there wasn’t any precipitation falling on January 5, 1997, we will need to compute the approximate height of the freezing level. Using the Sacramento mean temperature for the 5th (49 degrees), and assuming an atmospheric lapse rate of 3.0 degrees Fahrenheit per thousand ft., the elevation of the free air freezing level (away from earthly influences) was approximately 5,700 ft. Even though there may be more runoff potential from a recently saturated watershed (mainly below 5,500 ft), the assumption is being made that the amount of runoff from rain on the lower 30% of the watershed (below 3,100 ft.) would be about the same. Therefore, the 19,837cfs flow for January 5, 1997 was used as the estimated flow for January 14, 1862.

*When unsaturated air is lifted in the atmosphere, it cools at the rate of 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit per 1,000 ft. of ascent, and is called the dry adiabatic lapse rate. This happens because atmospheric pressure decreases with elevation. When saturated air is being lifted, it cools off at a slower rate because condensation is taking place and some heat is being given up to the atmosphere. This lapse rate is known as the wet adiabatic lapse rate. The lapse rate for saturated air is 3.5 degrees per 1,000 ft. ascent. When no vertical motion is involved, the normal lapse rate in the mid-latitudes is approximately 3.0 degrees per 1,000 ft. of ascent.

EVENT #3 (January 20-24, 1862): Streamflow data from the major flood of March 1907 were used to help estimate the mean daily flows for this flood event. See Figure 6, and compare watershed snow conditions. Also refer to Figure 5 and note the similarity in the magnitude of the burst precipitation. Review snow (depth vs. elevation), Profiles 3 and 4. In addition, compare the watershed prime, Figure 9. In the thirty one days prior to the beginning of Event #3, approximately 38 inches of precipitation fell in Grass Valley, compared to only 9.36 inches prior to the precipitation “burst” in 1907.

Date Estimated Daily Mean Flow Source of Data for Estimate- Yuba River at Smartville

Jan. 20, 1862 56,000 cfs Flow for March 17, 1907 Jan. 21, 1862 85,000 cfs Flow for March 18, 1907 Jan. 22, 1862 (HWD) 100,000 cfs Flow for March 19, 1907 (HWD) Jan. 23, 1862 60,000 cfs Flow for March 20, 1907 Jan. 24, 1862 27,000 cfs Flow for March 21, 1907

Sum of estimated Daily Flows for Jan. 20-24, 1862 = 328,000 cfs Converted to acre ft. = 649,440 acre feet

Summary of Results for December 1861 and January 1862:

Total Estimated Flow for 17 days = 1,083,804 cubic feet per second (cfs)

Converted to Estimated acre feet = 2,145,931 acre feet

34

Discussion of Results:

According to our estimate, the 17 days of runoff listed above exceeds the heaviest consecutive 52 days of runoff for either February 1986 or December-January 1996-97 by almost 10%. These two 52 day runoff events were the heaviest in the 20th century (see Figure 12).

The estimated 17 day runoff total for 1861-62 represents approximately 80% of the water that flowed past Smartville in a 52 day period, beginning December 6, 1861.

We estimate the total flow during the heaviest 52 day period (December 6, 1861 through January 26, 1862) to be over 2.6 million acre ft. This beats both February 1986 and December-January 1996-97 by approximately 25%.

These results indicate that any reasonable approach to estimating the daily mean flows for the 1861-62 Flood series will yield substantially more water than any comparable 52 consecutive day period in the 20th century.

About the Remaining 20%:

In between the major flood producing storms, there were several smaller storms that generated significant amounts of runoff. To begin with, 20th century storms that produced similar amounts of precipitation were chosen. The following is a brief list of storms that were used to help estimate the daily mean flows for some of the remaining days of the December-January 1861-62 runoff period:

1. 1907 - January 25 to January 29 2. 1938 - Late January to early February 3. 1945 - Late January to early February 4. 1951 - December 1 to December 4 5. Occasional single days were extracted from various storms

The results were improved by making reasonable adjustments due to differences in storm temperature and watershed conditions.

35

CHAPTER VI

FLOOD CLASSIFICATION MODEL WITH ESTIMATED RETURN PERIODS

After comparing the graphs of the heaviest 52 consecutive days of runoff for the major floods of the 20th century with a similar graph of the runoff for the December-January 1861-62 flood period, we decided there were some usable differences – differences that could be incorporated into a meaningful Flood Classification Model. (See Graphs 1 through 7). We decided early on to use a historical approach to calculate the return period for the various classifications of floods in our model. Our thinking on this matter evolved along the lines described below.

The statistical determination of flood frequency is the method used by hydrologists and engineers charged with the responsibility of recommending the size of dam spillways, the capacity of drainage systems for urban areas, size of levees along rivers and for other uses. Many years ago I discussed this subject with my good friend, Herb Riesbol. After a highly successful career with the Bureau of Reclamation, Herb became Chief Hydrologist for Bechtel Corp. with headquarters in San Francisco. Our paths crossed when Bechtel allowed him to advise those of us at PG&E involved in preparing a defense for the December 1955 Feather River flood lawsuit.

Herb told me about a project in which the Bureau of Reclamation built a dam somewhere in the Midwest – I believe in Kansas. He said they didn’t have much streamflow or climatological data upon which to base their design recommendations but what data they did have were used to develop a statistical analysis of flood size and frequency. As I recall, a few years after the project was completed there was a much larger flood than they expected. The spillway couldn’t handle it and water was flowing over the top of the dam. Then he offered this bit of advice: Before you run a statistically-based flood frequency analysis, make sure you have all of the available historical data from the area (such as stream flow, precipitation, temperature, etc.).

Recalling this conversation with Herb has given us the incentive to try a different approach to estimate future flood potential in the Sacramento Valley. We plan to combine the information gleaned from our extensive historical storm research for Northern and Central California, with Leon’s over 45 years of West Coast experience as a meteorologist.

Early in the preparation for the December 1955 Feather River lawsuit (see Preface) Donald Bradshaw (a company claims adjuster) contacted Professor Emanuel Fritz at the University of California in Berkeley. Don obtained a statement from Professor Fritz regarding his research on Trees as Recorders of Floods. In the early 1930s, Professor Fritz examined the root system of several fallen redwood trees in the North Coastal Region of California. The root system 37 of a (12 ft. diameter) redwood tree in Richardson Grove indicated there were at least seven major floods in approximately 1200 years. According to Fritz, “These floods added 11 ft. to the elevation of the soil level (since) the time the tree was born.” For more details on Professor Fritz’s redwood tree analysis, see Supplement 2,“Evidence of Record Flood Along the Russian River, January 1862", and Plate I for location..

The analysis by Fritz suggests a return period for major floods in the North Coastal Region of California of approximately 170 years. However, he does point out there were additional floods called “high water”, between the major floods, that were large enough to be destructive. We also made a brief analysis of record flooding in the North Coast Region of California. In this analysis we outline why we believe the December 1964 Flood should be labeled the eighth major flood to hit the north coast in approximately 1300 years. This fits in very well with Professor Fritz’s findings. (Again refer to Supplement 2).

Setting aside the discussion on the frequency of major floods along the North Coast, we need to define the combination of storm and watershed factors that produces major flooding– with emphasis on the Sacramento Valley. Our detailed study of the series of flood producing storms that swept across northern and central California in December 1861 and January 1862, sheds a great deal of light on this subject. It suggests there are several scenarios or combinations of storm and watershed factors capable of producing a major flood..

SCENARIO #1:

Between the first week of December 1861 and the last week of January 1862 there were four high water events–three of them in the major flood category.* According to our estimate, well over two and one-half million acre-feet of water flowed down the Yuba River past Marysville in 52 days. In a comparable 52-day period, this is approximately 700,000 acre-feet more than any of the major floods of the 20th century produced, including the floods of December 1955, December 1964, February 1986 and January 1997 (see Figure 12). Our historical storm research indicates that this storm sequence has only happened once since 1808– probably longer. I say probably longer because of the complex set of adjustments the atmosphere would have to make in such a relatively short period of time. How much longer? Using Professor Fritz’s redwood tree analysis as a guide, I doubt that this rare storm sequence has occurred more than once or twice in the past 1300 years.

* For the purposes of this study, a high water event on the Yuba River must meet two criteria to be classified a major flood. First, a mean flow equal to or greater than 100,000 cfs is required (for one day) on the Yuba River near Marysville. Then for three consecutive days the average daily flow must exceed 80,000 cfs at Marysville. The reference data used to make this determination were taken from the Corps of Engineer’s report: Technical Studies Documentation Appendix B (Table B 6-17) Yuba River at Marysville. These unregulated flow computations were made in 2002.

38 SCENARIO #2:

The heaviest consecutive 15 days of runoff occurred January 9-23, 1862. Now refer to Figure 3, the Daily Mean Temperatures for Sacramento and Figure 1, Daily Precipitation for Grass Valley (elevation 2700 ft.). Notice there are peaks in the Grass Valley precipitation graph at both the beginning and end of the 15-day period–indicating increased storm activity. The two valleys shown on the daily mean temperature graph for Sacramento correspond to significant snowfalls at low elevations. As shown by the Sacramento temperature graph and the daily Grass Valley precipitation amounts, both low level snow events were followed by heavy warm rains–a recipe for record peak flows on western rivers.

To summarize: It is highly unusual to have two moderate-to-heavy snow episodes at relatively low elevations followed by heavy warm rain in such a short period of time. The high water dates (HWD) of these two events were only about 11 days apart (see Graph 1). How unusual is it? Except for the flood producing situation outlined in Scenario #1 above, I have not observed, nor did we come across, a storm sequence with as much flood producing potential as this one! Once again using Professor Fritz’s work as a guide, a reasonable estimate would be three or four times in the past 1300 years.

SCENARIO #3:

Provided the snow pack is not very deep to begin with, a significant fall of fresh snow at any elevation followed by heavy warm rains will produce unusually high flows on streams and rivers. The late January early February 1963 “high water event” is a good example. As I recall, one of the westbound lanes of Interstate 80 was washed out by unusually high flows on the South Yuba River at Cisco. This storm briefly held the record for the peak flow on the Yuba River at Englebright Dam (150,000 cfs) only to be surpassed by the flood of December 1964–with a peak flow of 171,700 cfs. (Source: California Department of Water Resources Bulletin #69-65, Table #21).

Note: Remember that Scenarios #2 and #3 are segments of Scenario #1 and that Scenario #3 is a segment of Scenario #2.

The major flood situation of the 20th century that comes closest to duplicating the snow pack conditions that existed on the Yuba watershed immediately prior to the heavy warm storm of early January 1862 is December 1964. There is one notable difference. (See Figures 6 and 8 for a comparison). You will note that the snow pack in 1862 extends to lower elevations and that approximately 40% of the watershed (above Smartville) was covered by fresh snow in the 10 to 40 inch depth range. This compares to a little over 25% in 1964. It is my opinion that snow in this depth range, especially fresh snow, will temporarily store much of the rain and snow melt from the early part of the storm.* As the heavy bursts of rain continue the snow pack will finally give way resulting in record or near-record peak flows.

39 * For the water holding capabilities of snow (especially fresh snow), see the following articles found in the Proceedings of the Western Snow Conference held in Colorado Springs, Colorado, April 20-22, 1965:

1. Bertle, Frederick A. Effect of Snow Compaction on Runoff From Rain on Snow, Engineering Monograph #35. Bureau of Reclamation. 2. Riesbol, H., Hunsaker, L. and Mahoney, D. Role of Snowmelt and Snowpack Storage in Production of Runoff on Feather River Basin During December 1955 Flood.

Following this line of reasoning and assuming no flow interference from storage, I am convinced that the December 1964 flood would have produced a higher peak flow on the Yuba River at Englebright or at Marysville than either the flood of February 1986 or the flood of January 1997. However, compared to the flood producing storm of early January 1862, the peak flow registered at Englebright or Marysville by the December 1964 event loses by a margin of 10%-to-20%. This having been said, it is also my opinion that the peak flow on the Yuba River on December 23, 1964 (at either Smartville or Marysville), was the greatest since January 11, 1862.

On the other hand, the heaviest mean flow for a single day (at Marysville) was nearly the same for both the December 1964 and February 1986 floods, but the flood of January 1997 was approximately 11% greater. See Reference to Army Corps of Engineers’ study in the Preface.

Comparing the average daily flow for the heaviest consecutive 15 days, December 1964 only lags behind February 1986 and January 1997 by 2% and 5% respectively. But in a similar comparison they all lag significantly behind our average daily estimate of 51,000 cfs (over a 15- day period) in January 1862. December 1964 lags behind January 1862 by approximately 17%, February 1986 by 15%, and January 1997 by approximately 12%. (See Figure 11). These percentages are very likely conservative because the 51,000 cfs estimate was made for Smartville. The other estimates were made by the Corps of Engineers for the Yuba River at Marysville. Our estimate of 51,000 cfs leaves out almost a 150 square miles of drainage area that lies between Smartville and Marysville.

Another factor that makes our estimate of 51,000 cfs conservative is the use of flow data from 20th century storm patterns to help estimate the streamflow produced by similar storm patterns in December 1861 and January 1862. The flow data, used in these estimates, were very likely affected (at least in a minor way) by the various storage reservoirs put in place across the Yuba Watershed, beginning in 1912 with Lake Spaulding (storage capacity: 74,800 acre ft.). The calculations made by the Corps of Engineers at Marysville estimated what the runoff would have been without the reservoirs.

Next, we need to estimate how often it is reasonable to expect heavy snow at or near valley floor level to occur as far south as Placerville and the San Francisco Bay area. Having observed an episode of heavy snow in the valleys of Southwestern Oregon in January 2005, I have an idea of what it would take for Mother Nature to accomplish this feat. The Jet Stream needs to plunge southward from the Arctic Circle just far enough off shore to tap into a moisture source 40 provided by a weak upper level low pressure area lingering off the central California coast. These disturbances are usually left behind by a previous development and have been in the region long enough to have picked up a good supply of moisture from the subtropics.

The relatively weak storm lingering off the central Coast of California supplies the moisture and the developing storm associated with the plunging northerly Jet Stream provides the lift and the necessary cold air. (See Supplement 3,“Heavy Snow at Low Elevations”–January 5 and 6, 1862). The only two low level heavy snow producers of this type (in recent years) I am aware of in southern Oregon occurred this past January 2005 and in January 1969–36 years apart. The chances of such an event occurring will decrease as the latitude decreases, especially at a latitude as far south as Placerville and the San Francisco Bay area.

Another factor needs to be introduced before our comparison of the December 1964 and January 1862 snow packs will be complete. In each case, this is the snow pack that existed prior to the commencement of the heavy warm rains. A northerly Jet Stream from the Arctic region was active in both instances but the moisture sources were different! In December 1964, a northerly Jet Stream was feeding cold Arctic air into a low pressure area parked just off the northern California coast. The primary moisture source in this case was the mid-latitudes of the Pacific Ocean. This is a cooler source region with less potential for evaporation compared to the moisture that was available from the lower latitudes in January 1862. The snow lines were higher in December 1964–near 3,000 ft. on the Yuba watershed. This is because of the widespread (moderate-heavy) overrunning type precipitation that accompanies a storm the type of January 1862. In this situation some of the overrunning precipitation (falling through dry-cold air) will evaporate into the atmosphere causing the snow levels to drop an additional 1,000 ft. to 2,000 ft. The atmosphere cools because the heat to produce this change of state is extracted from the surrounding air–at the rate of approximately 600 calories per gram of moisture that vaporizes. The Result: A snow level at or near the valley floor. This process may also be occurring in a December 1964 type storm, but to a lesser degree.

Finally, to complete the picture outlined in Scenario #3 above, we need a storm that produces heavy warm rain extending all the way to the summit of the Sierra. How often can we expect heavy snow at low elevations (in the Sacramento drainage) followed by a heavy warm storm–that produces rain to the summit? Using Professor Fritz’s work as a guide, I would estimate that the events outlined in Scenario #3 will occur once in 170 years. Since it appears that the December 1964 Flood is the eighth major flood along the north coast in approximately 1300 years, the flood frequency for Scenario #3 will likely be closer to 150 to 160 years.

However, since Scenario #3 discusses two possibilities, additional clarification is required. The December 1964 type Flood event will be labeled “3A” and a January 1862 type Flood event will be labeled “3B”. Compared with a type “3A” event, the January 1862 flood producing situation (type “3B”) will occur less often on the Yuba watershed. In addition, it will likely produce higher peak flows and a greater volume of runoff. This statement is based partially on our assessment of what happened in the Russian River area during the early January 1862 flood event. (Refer to Supplement 2). 41 With this in mind, I believe a realistic assessment of flood frequency for Scenario #3, would call for either a, type "3A" or "3B" event to occur every 150 to 160 years, with a higher probability (say two out of three times) that it will be a type "3A" event.

Another good reason the type 3B event will likely occur less often than a type 3A event is the issue of frozen ground. As stated earlier, we have recently uncovered evidence that frozen ground was an important factor in the early January 1862 flood episode. Remember, once the warm phase of the storm begins, it is the combination of fresh snow on frozen ground, with heavy rain, that produces large quantities of explosive-type runoff. (For more information see Supplement 4). By defmition, the snow lines are higher in a 3A event. Therefore, the watershed area, with a fresh snow cover on frozen ground, will likely be much less than a Type 3B event­ similar to January 1862.

Looking at it from another perspective, frozen ground is an additional factor in the sequence of meteorological events that are necessary to produce a type 3B event like the one that occurred in early January 1862. That being said, it seems to us that, compared to a December 1964 flood (type A event), the frequency of a potential flood producing situation similar to January 1862 (type B event) would be considerably less.

A great example of explosive-type runoff, on a large scale, occurred in Sacramento in early January of 1862. Dr. Thomas M. Logan's chart showing the oscillations of the Sacramento River indicates a very rapid rise in river level on January 10, 1862. It is our contention that this sudden rise in water level was due to the combination of fresh snow on frozen ground, followed by heavy warm rain. For more details, see Dr. Logan's oscillation chart, Diagram B, at the end of Supplement 4.

A comparison of the heaviest 52 consecutive days ofrunoff for December 1964, February 1986, and December-January 1996-1997, indicate the volumes are reasonably close- within 5% (see Figure 12). Both the February 1986 and December-January 1996-1997 flood events produced more runoff but as has been previously stated, December 1964 produced the highest peak flow. For the purposes of estimating flood frequencies, a December 1964 ("3A") event will be placed in the same general category as February 1986 and December-January 1996-1997. This leads us into our fmal classification - Scenario #4.

SCENARIO #4:

This scenario includes those situations like February 1986 and December-January 1996­ 1997 that are capable ofproducing widespread flooding due in part to the questionable condition of the levee system. In both of these "high water events" a heavy snow pack blanketed the watershed above 5,500 ft. We found during our preparation for the December 1955 Feather River lawsuit that a significant amount of water remained in the snow pack after the storm was over. In addition, our calculations showed that compared to bare ground, *runoff from the area covered by snow was significantly less, during the early part of the storm. 42 About what percentage of the watershed would have a reduction in runoff because of the heavy snow pack? (Review Figures 6 and 7). Notice that the distribution of snow across the watershed for February 1986 and December-January 1996-1997 is similar to December 1955. Snow pack storage computations were made for the December 1955 Flood Event on a neighboring watershed – the Feather River watershed.* The results showed that a substantial amount of water was retained in the snow pack (above 5,500 ft.) after the storm was over. Using these results as a guide, approximately 30% of the Yuba Watershed area would be affected by a reduction in runoff. In most cases, this would likely be enough coverage to reduce the size of a flood event on the Yuba River.

To help estimate the frequency of occurrence of flood events similar to February 1986 and December-January 1996-1997, we need to review the storm and flood history of the region. This analysis will be the subject of the next chapter.

* Riesbol, H., Hunsaker, L. and Mahoney, D. Role of Snowmelt and Snowpack Storage in Production of Runoff on Feather River Basin During December 1955 Flood. Proceedings of the Western Snow Conference. Colorado Springs, Colorado, April 1965.

43

CHAPTER VII

HIGH WATER PRODUCING STORMS ON THE YUBA WATERSHED BETWEEN 1863 AND 1903

Since the major floods of the 20 century are already a part of this study, we need to determine if any 19th century floods, besides the 1861-62 series, qualify as major floods. We need to analyze the storm and watershed factors to make this determination because, as previously stated, reliable runoff data are not available for 19th century flood events. (See Diagram A, between Chapters III and IV). A list of storms that produced high water at Marysville was taken from the book Memories, My Seventy Two years In the Romantic County of Yuba, California.* Of the eleven “high water events” listed by Mr. Ellis during the 40 year period 1863-1903, six of the more promising and interesting episodes were chosen for further study: December 1867, January 1875, April 1880, February 1881, December 1884 and January 1896.

* Ellis,W.T. Memories, My Seventy Two Years In the Romantic County of Yuba, California. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, 1939.)

To better understand the way this will be accomplished, we are going to analyze how the main storm and watershed factors affected the runoff during several major floods of the 20th century. A good example compares the magnitude of the runoff for December 1955 with the runoff for February 1986 and December-January 1996-97. The runoff in both of the latter instances is noticeably greater than December 1955. (See Figure 12). However, there are some striking similarities in the major factors that determine the quantity of runoff.

Let us begin with the snow pack (Refer to Figures 6 and 7). The comparison is close enough that it is safe to conclude the distribution of the snow on the watershed did not contribute in a significant way to any differences in streamflow. An examination of how well the watershed was primed (see Figure 9), suggests that it was adequately primed in all three cases. Although the graph does indicate that December-January 1996-97 had the edge.

Turning to the major storm factors that affect runoff, we will begin with the precipitation amounts. Looking at the “burst” precipitation for Grass Valley and Lake Spaulding, December 1955 and January 1997 are quite similar. (See Figure 5). But they both lag behind February 1986 at Grass Valley and Lake Spaulding by approximately 15 to 20%. Two other Yuba Basin stations, Deer Creek Forebay and Strawberry Valley (both in the 3,500 to 4,000 ft elevation range), posted three day “burst” amounts within one half-inch of the 20.77 inches observed at Lake Spaulding. Without a doubt this is the main reason the runoff for February 1986 was greater than December 1955.

A comparison of the storm temperatures (Figure 10) suggests that one reason January 1997 flows exceeded December 1955 was because the December-January 1996-97 storm was significantly warmer than December 1955, causing more snow to melt. An examination of the temperatures for a couple of stations in the Yuba watershed, Grass Valley and Lake Spaulding, supports the idea that the December- January 1996-97 storm was noticeably warmer.

45 Digressing for a moment, the warmer the air, the more moisture it can hold in the form of vapor. Because the air was warmer in the December-January 1996-97 event, when the wind blew across the snow, an increased amount of moisture was available to release latent heat when the air was cooled and moisture condensed onto the snow pack. The snow pack is the recipient of this heat, which amounts to approximately 600 calories for every gram of moisture that condenses. The fact that the raindrops are warmer than the snow pack also produces melt. The heat the snow pack derives from this process is minor compared to the heat it receives when a change of state is involved. For example: assuming the temperature of the snow pack is at freezing (0 degrees Celsius/32 degrees Fahrenheit), and the temperature of one (1) gram of falling rain is +5 degrees C./41 degrees F., only 5 calories of heat would be given up to the snow pack by the gram of rain. Bottom line: Significantly greater snow melt was one of the principle reasons January 1997 produced more runoff than December 1955.

Finally, in order to analyze the six episodes listed in the first paragraph above, we have organized and presented the necessary information as a table. This table contains information on each of the four major storm and watershed factors that determine runoff. (See Table VII-A at end of Chapter VII).

The information and data listed in this table helped us determine if any of the high water episodes on the Yuba River between 1863 and 1903 qualify as a Scenario #4 type flood event. Referring to Table VII-A, before a decision could be reached, four of the six episodes we investigated required more information. The results of these analyses appear as Supplements 5-A through 5-D.

This investigation identified one more Scenario #4 type flood – that of December 1867. It has been included in our Flood frequency analysis.

46

CHAPTER VIII

Y E S ! YES ! YES !

Yes! Yes – “Lake Sacramento: Can It Happen Again?” And, yes, we are convinced it will happen again. There is ample evidence cited in this research to support that assertion. Our intent is to cause an increase in public awareness and concern; to inform, but not to alarm, regarding the potential for severe flooding. There are means, although requiring considerable investment of public and private monies, to mitigate the effects of a devastating series of flood events such as those that occurred in December 1861 and January 1862.

We are scientists and educators, which does not make us unusual because most scientists are eager for their ideas to be subjected to rigorous scientific challenge, and, for the general public to be educated about them. We are confident that our research, by and large, will withstand thoughtful outside review.

There are several approaches that may be taken in the near future. One is to “shoot the messengers” because of the bad news that has been borne by them.. That won’t work! The messengers already have admitted to being elderly, overweight, and gray haired, and between them they have whipped or are coping with coproporhyria, bladder cancer, fibromyalgia, prostate cancer, Eagle Syndrome and Lyme disease. We each already have one foot resting firmly on “Boot Hill”, thereby considering ourselves immune to personal attack!

It is our hope this work will be utilized to foster a proactive approach to the threat to Sacramento and environs, and to all of California’s economy. We are not the first ones to advocate this; we join a long list of public officials in several federal, state and local governmental agencies. We unite with fellow professionals in meteorology, geology, geography, hydrology, climatology, engineering, planning, economics, political science as well as a myriad of others committed to enhancing the public good and welfare of the citizenry. And, we present ample evidence that the media sources have reported events and potential problems accurately and responsibly.

We prefer to emphasize the educational opportunity that is provided here. Remember, learning is hard work for most of us. It is most likely that you will need to read and study our work more than once, and refer to it again and again. Leon has spent over forty years thinking about this, and it is all summarized in a few pages for you to consider. Probably the best educational tool is the Stream Basin Model (found between Chapters III and IV). This model describes the major storm and watershed factors which determine the magnitude of runoff. We think it is important to increase public understanding of 49 severe flood potentials. As populations continue to increase, more and more pressure is placed on local governments to allow urban growth in flood prone areas. It is not only the causes of floods that are important, but so too is the frequency of return for future flood events. We are excited about the fact that this simple diagram model is an important educational tool. Over thirty five years ago, as a consultant for the State of California, Leon was able to use this diagram to successfully educate the jury of a flood damage lawsuit.* According to the lead attorney for the defense, Hubert O. Bower, this testimony was the key factor in obtaining a favorable verdict for the State.

* This case was tried in Marysville, California, in the spring of 1968. Yuba County Case #17928, Bridges et. al. Vs. State of California. A description of this trial, and the PG&E Weather Office’s successful December 1964 flood forecast, is contained in Leon’s first book: Getting Started; The First Essay, published in 2004.

It is our duty as citizens to become informed on issues that are of great public significance and to lend our support as best we can to preserve life, limb and property of all citizens. That is our intent, and we are convinced that this work has taken a sizeable step in accomplishing our primary goal.

The factual information fundamental to our work has been gleaned from a variety of sources ranging from newspaper accounts during the placer mining era of the mid-19th century to meteorological and hydrologic records from the 1860s to the present. Eye witness accounts of flood events in December 1861 and January 1862 are extremely important in allowing us to reconstruct the major events of a 52 day period during those two months. Even then, larger communities were connected by telegraph, but information from the isolated mining camps trickled in over a period of days and weeks. The reports were basically the same from all sources.

Further, Leon found references to support the idea that the Yuba watershed had a significant portion of its basin with frozen soil conditions in early January of 1862. The Stream Basin Model provides a framework for understanding the response of the Yuba River basin to watershed prime and significant snowfall on frozen ground followed by heavy rains. (See Supplement 4). The result is what we have conservatively estimated to be the most devastating series of flood events in recorded California history, all contained in a 52 day period.

Further evidence from floods in the coastal Redwood region of northern California and other locales has allowed for the determination of potential flood return periods. Burst precipitation (amount and intensity), watershed prime (precipitation before the major storm event), snow depth (how much and at what elevation) and temperature (snowfall altitude) are fundamental to the determination of various flood scenarios. Supplement 6 summarizes the estimated return periods for the various proposed flood model scenarios presented in Chapter VI.

The floods of December 1861 and January 1862, according to our estimations, produced the heaviest 52 day runoff in recorded history. These events establish the norm against which other storms may be measured. First, we computed the heaviest 52 consecutive days of runoff for the major floods of the 20th century. These results were then compared with our estimate of the heaviest 52 consecutive days of runoff during the December-January 1861-62 flood period (see Figure 12). In the second comparison, we still used a 52 day period. However, it was modified somewhat by the insertion of the heaviest 15 consecutive days of unregulated runoff as computed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers for 20th century floods on the Yuba River at Marysville.

50

The Corps of Engineers’ unregulated flow computations for 20th century floods uses intervals of several days. The 15 day interval of heaviest flow accounts for the majority of water moving downstream in major events. In order to compare 20th century storms with the 1861-62 events, we expanded all those events to cover a 52 day timing sequence. That sequence commenced 32 days prior to the heaviest 15 days of unregulated flow and 5 days following that period of flow (see Figure 13). Without question, the 19th century storm period far surpassed all of the 20th century events. The closest were the flows of January 1997. Using the 52 day runoff, the 1860s event was still 27% greater than 1997. Applying the method developed by the Corps of Engineers, and modified by us, the 1860s event was 32% greater than 1997! Either way, we figure that the runoff in 1861-62 is significantly greater than what occurred at any time in the 20th century!

Please note that while in the process of estimating daily mean flows for the 1860s we were vigilantly conservative in our work. The flows of December 1861 and January 1862 may be underestimated by as much as 10 to 15%!

To further guard against complacency, let us point out that there were a number of “near misses” that were discovered during the research. Here are a few examples:

First, the flooding associated with the January 1875 storm (the last time Marysville was inundated) would have been much worse if the “burst” of warm rain had lasted 12 to 18 hours longer. In looking over the major watershed factors that affect runoff, it becomes apparent that the distribution of snow (depth vs. elevation) prior to the burst of warm rain was ideal. In that case, the January 1875 flood event would have come within an eyelash of matching – or exceeding – the magnitude of the December 1964 flood!

Then, less than ten years later, a very heavy, warm storm hit the Yuba watershed. Almost 34 inches of rain fell at Bowman Dam in six days! However, the late December storm failed to produce enough runoff to qualify as a major flood. Had it been preceded by a fall season with a normal amount of precipitation, it would have very likely qualified as a Scenario #4 type flood because the watershed would have been primed. For more details on this potentially major flood, as well as the January 1875 event, review the information presented in Table VII-A.

Another near miss occurred when a stubborn high pressure area over the western U.S. saved the day in late December 2003 - early January 2004. The jet stream flow was almost a duplicate of December 1964 from all the way across the Pacific Ocean, Asia, Europe, and into the North Atlantic Ocean. Because the high pressure area remained strong, the storm track was forced northward along the Pacific coast. Overrunning clouds from this development produced rain which fell into below freezing air flowing westward through the Columbia River gorge. According to the Portland, Oregon newspapers, a one in twenty-five to thirty year ice storm hit the city. Tye W. Parzybok, in his recent book, Weather Extremes of the West,* details on pg. 44 how the ice storm affected Portland and the surrounding area.

*Parzybok, Tye W.Weather Extremes of the West. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing, 2004.

Are you convinced yet of the potential for the formation of a future “Lake Sacramento”? We are, and, as you can see, we ARE willing to stake our collective reputations on these assertions in the hope that our family members, who reside in Sacramento and environs, our friends there from early working days in the capitol city, and EVERY citizen in the city and the rest of California gains a better understanding of the potential for devastating floods and their far-reaching effects. We are not qualified to suggest the best

51 ways to mitigate such threats, but we do know the cost will be staggering. A news article in the New York Times by Louis Uchitelle, dated September 11, 2005, “Disasters Waiting to Happen”, quotes Jeffery F. Mount, Professor of Geology and Director of the Watershed Center at the University of California, Davis as follows: “This is the fastest growing region in California, and the bulk of that growth is taking place on the flood plains. What we are doing is creating our own New Orleans.” We applaud Professor Mount for the courage to take a stand on an issue of such great importance.

Our research has caused us to independently reach the same conclusion.

52 SUPPLEMENTS

SUPPLEMENT 1

NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS OF HIGH WATER ON NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RIVERS DURING THE FLOODS OF 1861-62

SACRAMENTO RIVER AT RED BLUFF AND SHASTA

Weekly People’s Cause (Saturday, Feb. 5, 1881) Vol. XXI, No. 41, pg. 3, col. 6:

FLOOD ITEMS (from Friday’s Daily): At 10:00 o’clock last night the Sacramento had risen to the 27 and a half foot mark – 1 ft. higher than the great flood of 1877-8. At 3:00 o’clock this morning the river attained its greatest height, 28 and 1/4 feet above low water mark, and within a foot of the great flood of 1861-62. (Emphasis added).

Semi-Weekly Independent - Red Bluff (Tuesday, Jan. 14, 1862) Vol. II, No. 54, pg. 2, col. 1:

There has been no communication by stage, telegraph or express north of Shasta since last Wednesday. Barstow, Wells Fargo and Co’s messenger, informs us that the last heard from the North, Trinity River was up within 2 ft. of the rise of the big flood.

ANOTHER BIG FLOOD: The rain and melting snow in the mountains last week, raised the Sacramento at this place on Friday night, to within a foot and a half of the highest point that it obtained (during) the great flood of December. Cottonwood Creek was 3 ft. higher than it was ever before known to be, sweeping away Jackson’s bridge and doing considerable other damage.

Semi-Weekly Independent - Red Bluff (Friday, Jan. 24, 1862) Vol. II, No. 57, pg. 2, col. 1:

FATHER OF ALL FLOODS: The river which commenced rising gradually some days ago, yesterday morning attained a point higher than ever before known, being over a foot higher than the great flood of December last – being some 34 ft. above low water mark.....Large quantities of drift passed down the river, and large numbers of dead cattle, and occasionally live ones would float by struggling with the flood. A horse walked off the bank above town and went down the river with head erect, snorting as he pawed the muddy waters that were soon to make him a grave.

Semi-Weekly Independent - Red Bluff (Tuesday, Dec. 10, 1861) Vol. II, No. 44, pg. 2, col. 1:

LOSSES BY THE FLOOD: On Sunday evening, in this place, great fears were entertained that the warehouse of the Red Bluff flour mill would be inundated. The river continued to rise, inch by inch till midnight when it reached the building, but a change in the wind at that time put a stop to its further rising and at 3:00 o’clock on Monday morning it had fallen three or 4 inches.

55

Semi-Weekly Independent - Red Bluff (Tuesday, Jan. 28, 1862) Vol. II, No. 58, pg. 2, col. 3:

We learn by the Courier that the river at Shasta, on the 22nd , was 3 and-a-half feet higher than the flood of December. No material damage was done, as all the bridges in the county but three were swept away by the previous floods.

The Red Bluff Beacon (Thursday, Jan. 30, 1862) Vol. V, No 46, pg. 2, col.4:

THE FRESHET IN TEHEMA COUNTY: Since our last publication the Sacramento River has swollen to an extent never before known to the residents of ths county. On the morning of the 23rd instant, the water stood over 18 inches higher than in the first great flood of December.

The Shasta Courier (Saturday, Jan. 25, 1862) Vol. X, No. 47, pg. 2, col. 1:

RAINS SNOWS AND FLOODS: During the past two weeks it has rained almost incessantly. The snow fell to a depth of 8 inches or more in Shasta, and was melted off by drizzling rains. On Wednesday evening last the Sacramento river was at its highest stage, three feet and a half higher than it has been at any previous time this winter.

The Shasta Courier (Saturday, Jan. 11, 1862) Vol. X, No. 45, pg. 2, col. 3:

On last Saturday night the snow fell to the depth of 12 inches at this place.

MIDDLE FORK OF THE FEATHER RIVER AT NELSON POINT

The Plumas Standard (Quincy, Plumas County, California) (Saturday, Feb. 1, 1862) Vol. III, No. 16, pg. 2, col. 3:

NELSON POINT CORRESPONDENCE, Nelson Point, Jan. 15, 1862:

FRIEND LYNCH (Editor of The Standard): As it is now some three weeks since we have been blessed with the sight of a Standard, it will be well enough to send you this for the double purpose of reminding you that there was such a place as Nelson Point, and also, to let you know that it has gone down... the river.

On Friday last, we were visited by the most destructive and devastating flood that it has ever been the lot of ‘white’ men to see in this part of the country. Feather River reached the height of 9 ft. more than was ever known by the ‘oldest inhabitant’, carrying away bridges, camps, store, saloon, restaurant and much real-estate. – But to particularize: Friday morning, January 10th, the water had risen nearly to the mark of the last high freshet, and it still continued raining very hard. — About Saturday noon, the water had reached its highest mark, which is some 28 ft. above its ordinary level. Logs and drift are now lying up in places that, when the water falls, will cause me n to wonder with the poet: “Not that the thing was rich or rare, but how the devil it got there.” Yours, PLUG 56 NELSON POINT CORRESPONDENCE - Ten Days Later (counting from date of Plug’s letter):

We are just now recovering from another deluge — our third great flood. The river reached the height of 26 ft. above ordinary low water mark. Luckily, it has done little damage this time – in fact there was very little to do. Yours truly, PLUG

FEATHER RIVER AT OROVILLE

The Oroville Record (Saturday, December 28, 1867):

THE STORM IN BUTTE COUNTY: the storm, which has been one of great severity, has poured a tremendous volume of water down the course of the Feather River, and must have done much damage in the lower portions of the valley. The River here has at no time during the storm attained so great a height as it did during the flood of 1861-62,(bold added) into some 8 or 10 ft...

Weekly Butte Record, Oroville (Saturday, Dec. 14, 1861):

THE GREAT FRESHET: ...when the light of Monday morning removed the curtain it was found that a rise of full five feet during the night had swept away every vestige of the remaining habitations...At the saw-mill and at the foot of Downer street, the water reached Montgomery street. At the foot of Myers street it was high enough to deposit quite an amount of driftwood immediately in the rear of Faulkner & Co’s banking house. The flood reached its highest stage about 7 o’clock Monday morning and by ten o’clock its receding was perceptible.... There are conflicting opinions amongst the old residents, regarding the height of the present freshet as compared with that of 1853, but from what we can gather of the height obtained during the latter year, in absence of any permanent mark, we feel justified in putting the present at least on equal height with that. It will vary but slightly either way.

Weekly Butte Record (Saturday, Jan. 18, 1862) Vol 9, No. 10, Pg. 2, Col. 1:

STILL ANOTHER FLOOD: P.S. Just as we are going to press (7 o’clock P.M.) - Feather river is one foot higher than on the 9th of December, 1861. It is still rising and threatens to submerse Montgomery street.

Weekly Butte Record (Saturday, Jan. 18, 1862) Vol. 9, No. 11, Pg. 2, Col. 3:

THE LAST FLOOD (Cont’d): In our last issue we mentioned that another flood was upon us, of proportions surpassing that of December 9th, but it did not reach its highest point until towards noon of Saturday, the 11th, when the greater portion of the way from Myers street to the saw-mill. Montgomery street was submerged to a depth, in many places, of two feet or more causing the hasty removal of families living on the lower side of the street... Below here, at Kent’s Ranch, the water gained a height of seventeen inches in Kent’s house, 57 being sixteen inches higher than on the 9th day of December the river, at this point, attained a height at least two feet higher than at the last great flood.

Weekly Butte Record (Saturday, Jan. 25, 1862) Vol.9, No. 12, Pg. 2:

A gentleman from the mountains informs us that, on Friday, the 10th inst., Benj. Bowers and ---- Wilson, were on an island in the Middle Fork of Feather river, near Hartman’s Bar, when the water rose rapidly and overflowed it. They clung to an oak tree, where they remained from Friday morning until the following Monday, without anything to eat. When the river fell, on Monday, they managed to get ashore and were taken care of at Hartman’s Bar, and are now doing well. Our informant says that several houses, large quantities provisions, clothing, mining tools, etc., were washed away. ...On Wednesday night the water rose here to the exact height that it attained at the first flood on the 9th of December...The water attained its greatest height about 10 o’clock and then rapidly receded, and by morning had fallen about 6 feet, and so continues to fall. On Thursday at noon, the wind shifted to the north, and it cleared off bright, beautiful and cool.

YUBA RIVER AT MARYSVILLE (Including miscellaneous reports from the North, South, and Middle Forks of the Yuba as well as the surrounding country side.)

Nevada Democrat (Tuesday Evening, Dec. 10, 1861):

The late storm has perhaps been the most severe of any that has occurred in this section for many years. From Friday evening until Monday morning it rained without intermission and from a rough measurement which we have kept, we judge that about a foot and a half of water fell during that time. The weather being quite warm, the rain extended far up in the mountains melting off immense quantities of snow and raising streams higher than ever before known. Yesterday morning the South Yuba was 26 ft. above low water mark and 12 ft. above the highest rise of last year. — At the upper end of Jones Bar, where the channel is narrow, the water raised 40 ft. above the low water mark, being 12 to 15 ft. higher than ever known.

Marysville Appeal (Wednesday, Dec. 11, 1861):

CONDITION OF AFFAIRS AT MARYSVILLE: On Saturday rivers were rising slowly, but not enough to justify (an) opinion that there would be much of a flood. By Sunday morning at daylight the Yuba had backed up to the slough to such an extent that all the lower part(s) of town were fast filling up with water. All night the rain fell in sheets and the wind blew furiously. [The] Portion of town bordering on slough which makes into the Yuba above was afloat, house after house submerged; many smaller ones going off the rapid tide. The rapidity of rise of the water 58 was unprecedented, as when it began to break over high ground next to the river, the rush was tremendous.

Over the valley south of Marysville the flood extends for several miles till it meets the first swell of the foothills, where it takes off (into) numerous sloughs. All bottom lands are flooded. At Nicholaus the water rose 3 ft. higher than at any time last year. The whole country between (the) Feather and Sacramento river(s), nearly up to Yuba City is covered with water.

Nevada Democrat, Nevada City (Thursday, Dec. 12, 1861) Vol IX, NO. 549, pg. 3, col. 1:

THE MIDDLE YUBA: Parties over from the Middle Yuba inform us that during the late flood the water rose 10 ft. higher than at any previous time in the past 10 years, and 6 ft. above the highest water marks. — Pine trees at least 200 years old were swept away, which were so situated that they must have been carried off had the water been as high since they commenced growing as was on Monday.

Nevada Democrat (Thursday Evening, Dec. 12), 1861:

THE GREAT FLOOD: Sacramento and Marysville Submerged, Great Loss of Life, Immense Destruction of Property: ...Parties who went to the top of Sugar Loaf on Monday and Tuesday could see the whole country from the foothills to the coast range, with the exception of here and there an island, all was under water. ....The water broke through the Sacramento levee early Monday morning from the American River and soon flooded the city. At Marysville the flood was scarcely less disastrous. Most of the city was submerged on Sunday night and the water continued to rise till Monday noon when it stood 4 inches above the high water mark of the spring of 1853.

The Nevada Daily Transcript (Saturday Morning, Dec. 14, 1861) Vol. III, No. 89, pg. 3, col. 1:

THE STORY OF AN OLD INDIAN: An old Indian says the late storm was but a “circumstance” compared with one that occurred within his memory, many moons ago. “Heap, heap water come. Saclemento valley all-e-same big water. Kill heap Injun, heap deer, heap labbit-no tlee-mucha water.” The old fellow says Injun don’t like to live in the valley ever since. The Indian may have reference to the flood of 1827, when General Vallejo is said to have tied his launch to the top of one of the sycamore trees on the site of Sacramento. The flood of 1827 is reported to have been vastly greater than any that had occurred since the settlement of the country by Americans down to 1852.

59 AMERICAN RIVER AT AUBURN AND FOLSOM

Auburn Union Advocate (Dec. 9, 1861):

The great rain storm which has prevailed for the past few days, arrived at its greatest violence last evening, Sunday, and continued with unprecedented violence until a late hour this morning. The river is said to have risen at a point near this place — to a height of 55 ft. above low water ma r k .

The Folsom Telegraph (Monday, Dec. 16, 1861):

At (Folsom) the American (river) rose 8 ft. higher on Monday than at the time of the flood in 1852.

The Sacramento Daily Union (Monday, Jan. 13, 1862):

GREAT DAMAGE AT FOLSOM: The American river rose on Friday night, 60 ft. above low water mark — The old flour mill of Stockton and Coover, built some seven or eight years ago and the new mill built during the past summer by Stockton & Coover and Carrol and Mowe were carried away, etc.

Given, A. and Grunsky, C.E. The Floods of 1861-62 at and near Sacramento, compiled from the daily papers. A report by Sacramento City Engineer Given and Consulting Engineer Grunsky. Location and date of report unknown:

January 22, 1862: Water in City is 5 inches above December 9th [1861] and 15 inches below January 10th.

Nevada Democrat, Nevada City (December 14, 1861):

The Consumnes, Mokelumne and Calaveras rivers were very high but not overflowing.

Nevada Democrat, Nevada City (December 21, 1861) Vol IX, No. 553, pg. 1, col. 5:

All the extraordinary floods appear to have been in streams north of the Mokelumne.

60 SUPPLEMENT 1-A

Information Used to Estimate Snow Cover (depth vs. elevation) for December 5, 1861 on the Yuba Watershed

A. NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS

1. Grass Valley National (Tuesday, Nov. 19, 1861):

FIRST SNOW: The first snow of the season fell hereabouts, on Saturday night last, on Sunday morning the ground around and about Grass Valley was covered with a wintry Mantle (a) full 4 inches thick.

2. Grass Valley National (Thursday, Nov. 21, 1861):

The storm just passed has been one of the severest experienced for many years. Six feet of snow has fallen upon the Placerville summit, and of course travel over the mountains has been temporarily suspended. We have heard nothing from the Henness Summit for several days. Pack trains were started out on Monday, as the road was then impassable for teams.

3. The Nevada Democrat (Friday morning, Nov. 22, 1861):

The snow was 4 ft. deep on the Kingsbury grade, over the Placerville route, on the 16th instant, and the storm (was) still progressing.

4. The Nevada Democrat (Tuesday, Nov. 26, 1861):

THE HENNESS ROAD: Mau’s saddle train arrived in town yesterday morning, direct from Virginia City, by way of the Henness Pass. We learn from the driver that a good trail is now open for horsemen and pack animals. (See Plate IV).

5. Grass Valley National (Thursday, Nov. 28, 1861):

HENNESS ROAD: A gentleman who came down from Eureka informs the Democrat that the Henness Road is again open, and travel upon it resumed. 6. Sacramento Daily Union (Saturday, Nov. 30, 1861): 61

The Grass Valley National adds: We were visited with one of the heaviest storms of rain on Tuesday night last which we ever recollect of witnessing. The day was wet and damp throughout, but it did not set into rain until about half past seven in the evening. Between that hour and 9 o’clock (the next morning), 13 and a half hours (later), our rain gage indicated a fall of 4.12 inches. During the balance of the day .50 of one inch was added to the fall, making a total of 4.62 inches of rain since our last issue, and 10.92 inches since the rains of the season commenced. This is a most unprecedented fall, for the time, and betokens a plentiful supply of the element so essential to the prosperity of the miner.

7. The Nevada Democrat (Thursday, Dec. 5, 1861):

FROM WASHOE: Mau’s saddle train arrived in town yesterday afternoon, direct from Virginia City. They left the latter place on Monday morning, and came through in less than three days. The driver reports a well beaten trail over the snow belt, so that no difficulty is encountered in traveling on horseback. It is not probable that any attempt will be made to cross with wagons this winter, but by using sleds a portion of the way freight can be taken over at comparatively reasonable rates. Mr. Mau’s saddle train will leave here for Virginia City tomorrow morning.

8. Sacramento Daily Union (Monday, Dec. 9, 1861):

Samuel Langton who arrived at San Juan [Nevada County] on Tuesday last [the 3rd], informed the press that the recent rains have melted nearly all the snows on the mountains.

Night before last the storm of wind and rain increased to a great height, and extended, it would appear, over a great circuit of country in this vicinity. The towns as far up as Strawberry Valley and the Columbus House report rain having fallen in large quantity, and, as a consequence, all the creeks and larger streams have filled up with astonishing rapidity.

9. Sacramento Daily Union (Monday, Dec. 2, 1861):

The Red Bluff Independent of November 29th says: the River at this point [the Sacramento River] rose unexpectedly on Wednesday morning, and was the cause of considerable loss to different parties, among whom is our townsman, Virgil Baker, who had 16,000 ft. of lumber lying on the bank at Ides’ Bottom, the whole of which was swept away before 8 o’clock in the morning. The evening previous it was about 10 ft. from the water, and no appearance of a rise.

62 10. Sacramento Daily Union (Wednesday, Dec. 4, 1861):

FRESHET IN DOWNIEVILLE: On Wednesday night, November 27th, there was a heavy freshet in Downieville, which carried away the flumes etc. and a new house lately built and inhabited by Andrew Cheppe. The family were sleeping in the House, but got away in season.

11. Grass Valley National (Thursday, December 12, 1861):

THE HENNESS PASS: Mr. Powers who came down from Orleans Flat this morning informs us that the rains extended to the summit of the mountains, carrying off the snow on the Henness Pass

. 12. The Nevada Democrat (Thursday evening, Nov. 28, 1861):

An immense quantity of rain fell in this region on Tuesday night – commencing about 8 o’clock in the evening and continuing without interruption until 9 or 10 o’clock the next day. It had the effect to raise the streams to an unusual height.

13. Marysville Appeal (Saturday morning, Dec. 14, 1861):

LETTER FROM SIERRA COUNTY: Laporte, December 11, 1861

EDS. Appeal: I have just returned to this place from a short trip to the mountains and find the late rains which have prevailed through this section of the country, have done much damage everywhere.— There is, however, a considerable quantity of snow left on the ground here and above here, although the rain fairly poured down for 60 hours.

14. The Nevada Democrat (Thursday, Dec. 19, 1861):

THE HENNESS ROAD: We conversed yesterday with two gentlemen just in from Virginia City, who came by the Henness route. From them we learned that there is no snow of consequence on the road, and though the mud in places is troublesome, the route is perhaps in as good a condition for travel as any other. The bridge at the Truckee, however, was swept away so that there is now no means of crossing except in small boats and swimming horses.

15. The Nevada Democrat (Saturday evening, Nov. 30, 1861):

It has been raining pretty steadily in this section, since a little after dark last night. The weather has been quite cool today, indicating a considerable fall of snow on the mountains above.

63 B. SNOWPACK DEPTH (INCREASE OR DECREASE) - BLUE CANYON DATA At or near the summit (approximately 7,000 ft. elevation) with a snowfall level at or near 6,000 ft.

1. January 13-16, 1956 a. Weighted mean temperature (Blue Canyon) for storm: 37 degrees b. Total precipitation (4 day period) at Blue Canyon: 7.42 inches c. Snow depths at Soda Springs 1) Beginning of storm (13th): 89 inches 2) End of storm (16th): 81 inches

2. March 2-7, 1960 a. Weighted mean temperature (Blue Canyon) for storm: 37 degrees b. Total precipitation (6 day period) at Blue Canyon: 6.74 inches c. Snow depths at Central Sierra Snow Laboratory 1) Beginning of storm (2nd ): 68 inches 2) End of storm (7th): 74 inches

Note: Assume a temperature of 34 degrees Fahrenheit at the snowfall level.

C. SNOWPACK DEPTH (INCREASE OR DECREASE) – SACRAMENTO AND GRASS VALLEY DATA At or near the summit (approximately 7,000 ft. elevation) with a snowfall level at or near 6,000 ft.

Guidelines for selecting cases:

1. Total two day precipitation at Grass Valley in the 3.5 in. to 8 in. range.

2. Mean temperature at Sacramento (during the two day period) 55 to 58 degrees.

3. Snow on ground at Soda Springs both in the beginning and end of the two day period.

4. Wet Adiabatic Lapse Rate* (3.5 deg/1000 ft.) used in conjunction with Sacramento weighted mean temperatures to locate snowfall level – this was assumed to be at 34 degrees Fahrenheit.

64

Month/Days/Year G.V.- precip. SAC.-mean temp. S.S.-snowpack Begin. End

March 26-27, 1940 4.09" 56 deg. 72" 70"

February 1-2, 1945 6.07" 56 deg 56" 58"

February 11-12, 1947 4.75" 58 deg. 41" 37"

February 23-24, 1957 4.26" 58 deg. 50" 57"

February 7-8, 1960 7.94" 56 deg. 66" 62"

* For an explanation of Wet Adiabatic Lapse Rate see Chapter V, Event #2.

D. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

1. Assume the snow pack depth increased 11 inches between the 17th and the 21st of November (1.10 inches of rain fell in Grass Valley sometime during this period.)

2. The snow line on November 19-20, 1961 was approximately 4,300 ft. This estimate was made using a Sacramento mean temperature of 49 degrees.

3. It was assumed that little change occurred in the depth of snow pack on November 26, 27, 29 and 30, 1861 at the 6,000 ft. level. This assumption is based upon an estimated snowfall level of 6,000 ft. during this period of storm activity as indicated by daily mean temperature readings in the mid 50s at Sacramento.

4. Assume the snow pack settled 3 inches per day during the period of November 21-25, and from November 30 through December 5, 1861.

5. Eyewitness accounts regarding the condition of the snow pack just prior to the heavy warm storm of December 6-9, 1861. (See sections A7 and A8 above).

6. Report on snow remaining on Henness Pass following the heavy warm storm of December 6-9, 1861. (See section A11 above).

65

SUPPLEMENT 1-B

Information Used to Estimate Snow Cover (depth vs. elevation) on the Yuba Watershed – January 7, 1862

A. NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS

1. Grass Valley National (Tuesday, Jan. 7, 1862):

SNOW: A severe snowstorm commenced about noon on Sunday last, and by 12 o’clock that night it had fallen to the depth of about 15 in. Since that time the weather has been warm and drizzling. The snow is rapidly disappearing (emphasis added).

2. Nevada Democrat (Tuesday evening, Jan. 7, 1862):

The ground was covered to a depth of 12 to 15 in. In this place [Nevada City]. At Eureka the snow fell to a depth of 3 ft. and about the same quantity fell on the ridge above Omega.

3. Nevada Democrat (Tuesday evening, Jan. 7, 1862):

The weather on the 6th and 7th has been quite warm and the snow is gradually melting (emphasis added).

4. Nevada Democrat (Saturday, Jan. 4, 1862):

Based upon a report from Strawberry Valley [Placerville route] 6 ft. of snow fell on the summit during late December storms. The snow must have fallen much deeper in that region [referring to the summit above Placerville] than in the mountains farther north.

5. Comments found in the Nevada Democrat and an examination of Sacramento storm temperatures indicate very little snow was left below 4,500 to 5,000 ft. by January 4, 1862. Stages were in use (in the 4-5,000 ft. elevation range) prior to the snowstorm of January 5th.

67 B. HAND-BOOK ALMANAC FOR PACIFIC STATES

Source: Knight, William H. Hand-Book Almanac for Pacific States. San Francisco: H.H. Bancroft and Company, 1862–. :

1. Report from Big Tree Road, Jan. 5-6, 1862:

A published report by Mr. Richy states that 28 in. of snow fell 4 mi. west of summit along Big Tree Road on the 5th and 6th of Jan. 1862.

Note: Big Tree Road crossed the summit east of South Lake Tahoe before dropping down into Carson City.

C. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED IN ESTIMATING SNOW DEPTHS

1. EXAMPLES OF RATES OF SETTLEMENT OF NEW SNOW - JANUARY 1952 Manzanita Lake, Shasta County, Elevation 5,850 ft.

Date 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Depth of Snow (in inches) 44 68 82 88 84 80 73 70 72

New Snowfall (in inches) 12 24 14 10 - - - - 4

Mean temperature at Red Bluff 40 40 45 44 37 41 - 40 44 (in degrees Fahrenheit)

Note 1: Because of settlement, today’s new snow fall plus yesterday’s pack depth will not necessarily equal the depth of today’s snow pack Note 2: Very little precipitation was reported in Grass Valley or Red Bluff during the period Jan. 16 - 19.

2. EXAMPLES OF RATES OF SETTLEMENT OF NEW SNOW - JANUARY 1952 Lake Spaulding, Nevada County, Elevation 5,156 ft.

Date 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Depth of Snow (in inches) 108 110 115 132 142 140 130 120 124

New Snowfall (in inches) 26 10 5 17 12 2 - - 6

Mean temperature at Sacramento 47 46 45 48 45 43 - - 47 (in degrees Fahrenheit) 68

3. LIST OF ASSUMPTIONS

a. Eight inches of snow melt and settling within the snow pack.

b. A settlement of 5.0" per day within the snow pack.

c. The new snow (28.0") which fell on the 5th and 6th was assumed to settle approximately 14.0" by the 7th – increasing the depth of the snow pack 14.0" at the higher elevations.

69

SUPPLEMENT 1-C

Information Used to Estimate Snow Cover (depth vs. elevation) for January 18, 1862 on the Yuba Watershed

A. NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS

1. Sacramento Union (Wednesday, Jan. 22, 1862):

THE LATE STORM IN SIERRA: The LaPorte Messenger of Saturday, Jan. 18th says: The snow is now about 3 ft. deep on the average, and still coming down as we go to press Friday afternoon.

2. Sacramento Union ( Friday, Jan. 17, 1862):

SNOW: We heard last evening that snow was falling at Auburn and Mud Springs. Mean temperature at Sacramento on the 16th was 42 degrees. — A gentleman came down from Folsom yesterday afternoon and reported that snow was falling from Placerville to Strawberry and just before he left another telegram was received, stating that the snow had turned to rain – and it was raining all the way to the summit of the Sierra.

3. Nevada Democrat (Thursday, Jan. 16, 1862):

CONTINUANCE OF THE STORM - Sunday last was a pleasant day, giving hopes that the elements had expended their fury and that we should have a few weeks of fair weather. We were still more encouraged in this hope by the fact that the moon changed about this time, which, as everybody knows has a wonderful effect upon the weather in this country. But the wind was still from the southeast and about 4 in. of snow fell on Monday night. On Tuesday the sky was obscured by thick clouds and snow commenced falling again yesterday afternoon, which changed into rain during the night. The rain has been falling steadily today carrying off much of the snow. The thermometer today has stood at about 42 degrees above zero, from which we infer that the rain extends nearly to the summit.

4. Weekly Butte Record (Saturday, Jan. 18, 1862):

71 It has rained incessantly during the past week and at this time – 6 o’clock Friday afternoon – continues with unabated vigor. It has been snowing steadily in the mountains and foothills, consequently the Feather River is about on a stand.

Note: This statement also supports cooler storm temperatures for the 16th and 17th.

5. The LaPorte Messenger (Saturday, Jan. 18, 1862):

Friday afternoon the 17th – still snowing.

Note: Assumed no change in snow depth on the 18th through the morning of the 19th. The mean temperature at Sacramento on both days was 52 degrees – indicating a snow line of about 5,100 ft.

6. Grass Valley National (Thursday, Jan. 23, 1862):

The rain ceased to fall soon after dark last evening, and as we write – 12 o’clock M. Thursday – the sun is shining brightly.

7. Sacramento Daily Union (Friday, Jan. 24, 1862):

RAIN & SNOW IN THE INTERIOR: It was storming very hard in the mountains (Jan. 21, 1862). The snow on the summit of the Sierra Nevada was from 10 to 15 ft. deep.

8. Nevada Democrat (Thursday evening, Jan. 23, 1862):

...But a gentleman, who was on the ridge leading to Washington, informs us that about noon yesterday the wind changed from the south-east to south-west and if it continues in the latter direction we may expect a few days of moderately pleasant weather. For several days the weather has been quite warm, the thermometer ranging from 50 degrees to 52 degrees above zero, but has been some six to eight degrees cooler today. There was very little rain after seven o’clock last night, and the sun came out this morning and has been visible most of the day.

72

B. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES

1. Assumed 10 in. of snow were melted or washed away (just above Nevada City) by the 3.58 in. of rain that fell on the 16th and 17th.

2. The total precipitation that fell in Grass Valley between the 14th and 16th of January 1862 was 2.73 in. Because of the low snowfall level, approximately 2,300 ft., during this period (14th-16th) it was assumed that 10 in. of snow per one inch of precipitation fell at 5,000 ft. Using this assumption, approximately 27 in. of snow fell at 5,000 ft. If we allow for 7 in. of settling, there would be about 20 in. of snow on the ground at 5,000 ft. on the 16th.

3. On the 17th, the snow fall level lifted to approximately 3,700 ft. At 5,000 ft., it was assumed that 1 in. of precipitation would produce about 5 in. of snow. The total precipitation recorded at Grass Valley on the 17th was 2.3 in. Converted to snow, this would amount to approximately 12 in. Thus, the total estimated snow depth at 5,000 ft. early on the 17th would be the sum of 20 in. + 12 in. = 32 in. total.

4. Approximately 10 ft. of snow was on the ground at the summit on the 21st of January 1862 (see section A7 above). In order to estimate the amount of snow on the ground January the 18th, the amount of snow that fell on the 19th and 20th needs to be deducted. Using Grass Valley precipitation as a guide, the 4 in. of precipitation that fell on these two days indicates that approximately 40 in. of additional snow was deposited on the summit. If we allow 10 in. for settling, the estimated snow depth in the vicinity of Henness Pass on the 18th would be approximately 90 inches.

73

SUPPLEMENT 2

EVIDENCE OF RECORD FLOOD ALONG THE RUSSIAN RIVER JANUARY 1862

(See Map - Plate I “Northern California”)

The Sacramento Daily Union of February 12, 1862 carried an article outlining the massive flooding that had occurred during January 1862 in the North Coast region of California. On pg.2, col. 3, there was a vivid description of the damage caused by the flood at the mouth of the Klamath River and the Russian River valley:

A gentleman, who had obtained statements from men who had been on the ground since the freshet, informs us that an old adobe house, built by Russian hunters in 1808 on the Russian River, had never been disturbed by the water until this year.

The water in January was 15 ft. in depth where it [the adobe house] stood, and left not a sign of it remaining.

The water in the valley was from 6 to 10 ft. deep over an immense surface of country never before overflowed and that the destruction of property was so great as to almost depopulate that valley. The loss of livestock was fearful. One man claimed that 1200 head of his beef cattle drowned.

There is plenty of peripheral evidence to support this news story. The Sacramento Valley, from just south of Red Bluff to Stockton and beyond, was one huge lake. The series of major storms that hit Northern California in December 1861 and January 1862 was responsible for this disaster. A storm in early January was especially devastating. It produced widespread heavy snow at low elevations and was followed by heavy warm rains which combined to produce record flows on most of the rivers draining to the Sacramento Valley. Available meteorological data suggests that these same factors were in play in early January of 1862 in the Russian River area.

The following data were used to reach this conclusion:

1. West, David J. David J. West Pocket Diaries. Ms. Collection,1852-1912. Berkeley: Bancroft Library, University of California.

January 6, 1862 Entry (Diary No.11, Antioch, California) : Rained hard all last night and all this forenoon. The hills around Mount Diablo are white with snow. Wind came around to the west at sundown to [a] pleasant breeze.

75 2. Sacramento Daily Union (Saturday, Jan. 25, 1862):

MATTERS ABOUT CACHEVILLE: A correspondent of the Union, writing from Cacheville, January 22nd , thus discourses about matters in that vicinity: “snow fell in Cacheville and vicinity on the 5th instant, 7 in. Deep, and on the 15th instant 2 in. In the latter instance the flakes of snow falling were as large as the palm of your hand.”

3. Daily rainfall records for San Francisco indicate that a total of 4.14 inches of rain fell January 5th and 6th, 1862.

4. Daily mean temperature records for Sacramento show a reading of 42 degrees Fahrenheit on both January 5th and 6th, 1862.

5. Sacramento Daily Union (Wednesday, Jan. 8, 1862):

SNOW IN YOLO: C. Heinrich of Third & L streets, received a letter yesterday from his ranch in Yolo County, near the foothills, 30 mi. from the city, stating: The snow fell at that point 12 in. deep and that it was still lying on the ground, having melted very little. There was 6 in. of snow 12 miles this side of Cache Creek Canyon.

Having researched, in detail, the record breaking December 1861 - January 1862 flood producing storm series, and by drawing on my 17 years of forecast experience in the San Francisco Bay area, there is little doubt in my mind that the news article of February 12, 1862 in the Sacramento Daily Union was describing a “rare” event. There is no question that the snowfall which preceded the warm phase of the storm in early January was a major factor. Measurable snow in San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area cities and communities is not something that happens every winter – but it does occasionally occur. However, nearby Mt. Tamalpais (elevation 2,600 ft.) in the North Bay, Mt. Diablo (elevation 3,900 ft.) in the East Bay, and Mt. Hamilton (elevation 4,300 ft. ) down around San Jose, get snow more often and in heavier amounts. When there is a significant snowfall at these locations, especially Mt. Tamalpais, it is infrequent enough that it usually makes the evening news.

A snowfall event that occurred in the mid-1970s made the news. The news director at Channel 5 decided it would be a good idea to have a live weather segment from atop Mt. Tamalpais. The mountain was already capped by nearly a foot of snow, and according to available information, it was still snowing. I did my 6 o’clock weather report from the studio in San Francisco, then I was given a wild ride across the Golden Gate Bridge into Marin County, ascending Mt. Tamalpais just in time for the 7 o’clock news. I stood shivering in a snowbank while delivering my report, lit up like a Christmas tree by the headlights from our car and the TV communications van. Snowflakes swirled around me, painting an authentic winter scene for our viewers and my boss to enjoy – in the comfort of their homes. We must have had a good size audience that evening because for years afterward, complete strangers would make comments about the weathercast I did in a snowstorm. It certainly was a night to remember, and if I could recall the name of that news director, I’d toss a couple of belated “barbs” in his direction!

Besides the absence of television, there were other significant differences between the situation I just described and the conditions that existed in early January 1862. The snow was deeper in ‘62, and extended to much lower elevations, at or near the valley floor in some instances (see #2 and #5, above).

76 The mean daily temperatures in Sacramento (#4 above) and the precipitation amounts that fell in San Francisco (#3), strongly suggest snowfall amounts in the higher coastal hills and mountains of up to 3 ft. — possibly more in some areas. This unprecedented fall of fresh snow at low elevations was followed by heavy warm rains. Beginning on January 8, 1862, in four consecutive days a total of 8.56 inches fell in San Francisco. It is my opinion that initially, much of the water from the rain and snow melt was stored in the snow pack, causing some delay in the runoff. But, as heavy bursts of rain from the storm continued, the snow pack gave way, resulting in the unheard of high flows in coastal rivers and streams alluded to in the February 12, 1862 Sacramento Daily Union article quoted above. In addition, recent research indicates that the ground underneath the snow was frozen because of the unseasonably cold weather that prevailed prior to the snowstorm. For more details on the explosive nature of this combination of storm and watershed factors, see Supplement 4.

* Two notable storms that produced heavy snow at low elevations in Southern Oregon, November 20-21, 1977 and January 7-9, 2005, support these snow depth estimates.

The article obtained by Donald Bradshaw from Professor Emanuel Fritz of the University of California at Berkeley (“Trees as Recorders of Floods” May 1960), lends support to the premise that the flood of early January 1862 was a “rare” event. Sometime in 1933-34, after studying the root system of a 12 ft. diameter redwood tree that had fallen in Richardson’s Grove, located on the coastal Redwood Highway (Hwy. 101) about a mile north of the Mendocino-Humboldt County line, Professor Fritz concluded that “...floods had added 11 ft. to the elevation of the soil level since the tree’s birth, approximately 1,200 years earlier.” In his opinion, the tree had survived at least seven major floods, number seven likely being the infamous flood of early January 1862. This conclusion is backed by an examination he conducted on a 12 ft. diameter redwood tree that was felled on High Rock Flat, one mile north of Dyerville (see Plate I). Professor Fritz states:

...[examining] a small wound on one side, at stump-level cut, it was noted in 1934 that silt had been deposited in the wounded cavity and that subsequent growth covering the wound had compacted the silt. This discovery indicated that some years before 1934 there had been an unusual flood, one high enough to cover the ground by several feet. At lower points on the flat (during smaller floods) the flood water was above 6 ft. It was concluded that the silt in the wound was left by the great flood of 1861-62.

According to Professor Fritz, “An exact determination was not made.”

Based upon our investigation of the unusual storm series of December 1861 and January 1862 in Northern California, there is little doubt in my mind that the flood Professor Fritz identified above occurred in early January of 1862.

How “rare” was it? Because of limited data (refer to Preface), this is difficult to ascertain. Even so, an examination of the list of statements and facts that follows does allow us to draw several significant conclusions.

77 1a. Russian River Stream Flow Data for Two Significant Floods of the 20th Century:

Flood Event Peak Flow at Guerneville

December 23, 1955 90,100 cfs

December 23, 1964 93,400 cfs

Note: Even though the Coyote Dam was completed on the east fork of the Russian River (storage capacity 129,600 acre-feet) between Flood ‘55 and Flood ‘64, the peak flow at Guerneville in December ‘64 was larger by over 3,000 cfs.

2a. Statement made by Professor Emanuel Fritz:

During the 1955 flood, the silt deposition on High Rock Flat was about 8 in. near the [Redwood] tree and a foot or more on the road leading to it. On the Richardson Grove Flat the deposition was very light.

3a. Accounts contained in Chapter I, “Brief History of Early Floods”:

(1) The Winter of 1839-40 (page 11).

(2) What a Pioneer Has Seen. Interview with J.W. Marshall, discoverer of gold (page 12).

(3) Review Commentary on Expeditions of Jedediah Smith (1826-27) and John Works (1832-33), (page 11).

(4) The Flood of 1849-50 in the Sacramento Valley, (pages 12 & 13).

4a. “Evidence of Record Flooding Along the Russian River, January 1862" (this supplement, pages 75-77), paying special attention to the frequency of major floods statement made by Professor Fritz.

5a. Newspaper Accounts of “High Water” During the Floods of 1861-62 on rivers and streams draining into the Sacramento Valley. See “Plugs” letter to The Plumas Standard published in Quincy (January 15, 1862) regarding the flooding at Nelson Point.

6a. Comparative Peak Flows for December 1955 and December 1964 on the Eel River at Scotia and on the Klamath River near Klamath:

Eel River at Scotia: 12/22/1955 541,000 cfs 12/23/1964 752,000 cfs

Klamath River 12/22/1955 425,000 cfs near Klamath: 12/23/1964 557,000 cfs

Source: California State Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 69-65 Table No. 21

78 7a. Comparative North Coast 3 Day Burst Precipitation Totals for Flood ‘55 and Flood ‘64 at Covelo, Dos Rios and Mad River Ranger Station:

Covelo / Total for Dos Rios / Total for Mad River R.S. / Total for Burst Month Burst Month Burst Month

December 1955 6.18" 19.53" 13.42" 29.50" 9.80" 28.51" December 1964 13.10" 22.50" 19.63" 31.37" 14.79" * 36.67"

* Only a two day total – a measurement problem.

Note: The 3 Day Burst Precipitation Totals are the three heaviest consecutive days of precipitation that includes the high water date (HWD) on the Eel River at Scotia.

The statement by Professor Fritz (see #2a above), suggests that December 1955 ma y have been the worst flood on the Russian River during the one hundred year period 1863 through 1963. As you go north into the Eel River and Klamath River Basins, Flood’64 peak flows top Flood ‘55 by a wide margin (see #6a above). A review of the precipitation data (see #7a above) reveals a large disparity in 3 day burst amounts. This is without question the main reason why Flood ‘64 produced much higher peak flows than Flood ‘55. It is interesting to note how close the monthly precipitation totals were for the two storms. The difference was only 2 or 3 inches at Covelo and Dos Rios. Putting it another way, the December 1955 precipitation total for Covelo was only 13% less than the total for December 1964. At Dos Rios, the difference was significantly less! December ‘55 was within 6% of equaling December ‘64.

To round out our comparison of Flood ‘64 and Flood ‘55 on the Eel River basin, we need to consider the snow pack. Using the snow (depth vs. elevation) profiles for the Yuba Basin, located east/southeast of the higher elevations of the Eel River Watershed as a guide, this suggests the snow cover in December 1964 would have yielded more runoff than the December 1955 snow pack. In 1964, approximately 30% of the watershed was covered with snow, compared to only 15% in 1955. The snow was deeper in December 1955, with 18 inches or more above 5,000 ft., compared with a foot or more above 5,000 ft. in 1964. Since only 5 percent of the watershed is above an elevation of 5,000 ft., the much larger area of snow cover in 1964 would have very likely produced more snow melt. In addition, the possibility of runoff delay due to temporary storage in the snow pack would have been greater in 1964. This factor would have also tended to contribute to a higher peak flow.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. One of the seven major floods to hit the North Coast Region of California in the past 1200 to 1300 years occurred in early January of 1862.

2. The early January 1862 storm sequence (heavy snow cover on frozen ground at low elevations followed by heavy warm rains), produced the greatest flood on the Russian River since 1808 – possibly longer!

3. The December 1964 flood likely qualifies as the 8th major flood to occur in the vicinity of High Rock Flat and Richardson’s Grove (see Plate I) during the past 1200 to 1300 years.

79

SUPPLEMENT 3

REPORTS OF HEAVY SNOW AT LOW ELEVATIONS JANUARY 5 AND 6, 1862

1. Nevada Democrat (Tuesday, Jan. 7, 1862) Vol. IX, No. 559, Pg. 3, Col. 1:

SNOWSTORM: We were visited on Sunday last with a severe snowstorm. It commenced snowing about noon of that day, and continued without intermission for 12 hours, and yesterday morning the ground was covered to the depth of from 12 to 15 inches at this place. At Eureka the snow fell to a depth of 3 feet and about the same quantity fell on the ridge above Omega. The stage lines to Omega and Moore’s Flat have substituted sleighs for stages. The weather has been quite warm yesterday and today and the snow is gradually melting off.

Note: The elevation of Omega is approximately 5,000 feet.

2. Sacramento Union (Monday, Jan. 6, 1862):

RAIN & SNOW: there was a heavy fall of rain yesterday, commencing about 10 o’clock in the morning, and continuing without interruption till late last evening. At first the rain was mingled for a few minutes with a very respectable flurry of snow, the large flakes sailing slowly downward like a cloud of geese feathers, but melting as soon as they struck the moist earth. A snowstorm in Sacramento is a spectacle very rarely witnessed.

3. Dispatches to the Sacramento Union (Monday, Jan. 6, 1862):

Marysville: there was quite a severe snowstorm at Marysville, January 5th. It continued for about half an hour.

Placerville: It rained here all day yesterday and turned to snow last night; the ground [is] covered this morning. It has been raining all day today, and the roads are in very bad condition. The streams are not very full, the snow not melting in the mountains.

Marysville: Very cold and a little cloudy. Can see the foothills, low down, covered with snow in all directions. It has not rained since half past 3 o’clock this morning.

4. Sacramento Union (Wednesday, Jan. 8, 1862):

81 SNOW IN YOLO: C. Heinrech of Third & L streets, received a letter yesterday from his ranch in Yolo County, near the foothills, 30 mi. from the city, stating that the snow fell at that point 12 inches deep and that it was still lying on the ground, having melted very little. There was 6 inches of snow 12 miles this side of Cache Creek Canyon.

5. Sacramento Union (Wednesday, Jan. 15, 1862):

SNOW IN SHASTA: In Shasta on Saturday night, January 4th, the snow fell to the depth of 1 foot.

SNOW IN AUBURN: The heavy fall of snow of Sunday last was succeeded by a warm rain on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, that raised the rivers to an unprecedented height, and has undoubtedly proven more calamitous than the great flood of the 9th of December.

6. Grass Valley National (Tuesday, Jan. 7, 1862):

SNOW: A severe snowstorm commenced about noon on Sunday last, and by 12 o’clock that night it had fallen to a depth of about 15 inches. Since that time the weather has been warm and drizzling. The snow is rapidly disappearing.

7. Semi-Weekly Independent - Red Bluff (Tuesday, Jan. 7, 1862) Vol. II, No. 52, Pg. 2, Col. 1:

WINTERY: At about 1 o’clock on Sunday morning last, snow commenced falling in fleecy clouds, extending throughout the northern section of the state, and probably a great distance south of this place. On Sunday morning, many looked for the first time in their lives upon a Northern snow storm. — Games of snow balling and sleigh rides on curiously constructed vehicles was the order of the day. A gentleman of the legal profession residing on Jefferson Street gave his wife a sleigh ride, using a rocking chair with ropes, and a tea bell swung to his neck. The first attempt at starting resulting in the upsetting of the sleigh, alias rocking chair, and the spilling of its occupant in the snow, which accident was attributable to the cavorting of the Charger. — The snow fell to the depth of 8 inches in our streets, about the same depth of the snow in 1852.

8. Diaries of David West (Vol. 11: Antioch, California, January 1862 [see Plate III]):

Entry for January 6, 1862: Rained hard all last night and all this forenoon. The hills around Mount Diablo are white with snow. Wind came around to the west at sundown to [a] pleasant breeze.

Source: West, David J. David J. West Pocket Diaries. Ms.S, 1852-1912. Berkeley: Bancroft Library, University of California.

9. Sacramento Union (Saturday, Jan. 25, 1862):

82 MATTERS ABOUT CACHEVILLE: A correspondent of the Union, writing from Cacheville, January 22nd , thus discourses about matters in that vicinity: Snow fell in Cacheville and vicinity on the 5th instant, 7 inches deep, and on the 15th instant 2 inches. In the latter instance the flakes of snow falling were as large as the palm of your hand.

10. Daily Rainfall Records for San Francisco:

Records indicate that a total of 4.14 inches of rain fell on January 5th and 6th , 1862.

83

SUPPLEMENT 4

REPORTS OF BELOW FREEZING TEMPERATURES PRIOR TO SNOW STORM OF JANUARY 5 AND 6, 1862

1. Yreka Weekly Journal (Wed. January 8, 1862) Vol 7, No. 24, pg. 3, col. 1:

COLD: Since Friday last the weather has been quite cold, freezing up everything. The thermometer has ranged from 18 to 30 degrees above zero for the last six days. (Emphasis added.).

Yreka Weekly Journal (Wed. January 15, 1862) Vol 7, No. 25, pg. 3, col. 3:

On Saturday afternoon the weather began getting very cold, since which time the thermometer has ranged more or less below freezing point. MORE SNOW: Yesterday morning the ground was covered with three inches of snow, and the weather is exceedingly cold.

2. David J. West Pocket Diaries (January 1862) Vol. 11 -- Antioch, California:

JANUARY 2nd: Strong west wind - cool nights - the highest tide was yesterday. 3rd: Water all over the ground 8 inches deep - cool north wind looms like a front 4th: Plenty of flood wood running today. I picked up some posts & boards. Cold raw day. I c e froze last night. (Emphasis added.) 5th: Rained hard all day. Wind south east changed to the north at night. Very high tides. The freshet falling. 6th: Rained hard all last night and all this forenoon. The hills around Mount Diablo (see Plate III) are white with snow this morning. Wind came round to the west at sundown to pleasant breeze.

Source: West, David J. David J. West Pocket Diaries. Ms. Berkeley: Bancroft Library, San Francisco.

3. Nevada Democrat (Sat. January 4, 1862) pg. 2, col. 1:

COLD WEATHER: The weather has been unusually cold for the past two days, the ice forming to the thickness of half an inch last night and [the] night before. At eight o’clock yesterday morning (the 3rd) the thermometer stood at 24 degrees above zero, and though the sun was shining all day the mercury rose to only 30 degrees. At eight o’clock this morning (the 4th) the mercury was down to 17 degrees which is about as cold weather we ever get. There was a slight fall of snow on Thursday evening (the 2nd ) which is not yet melted off. (Emphasis added.) 85

Note: the mean daily temperature at Sacramento on the 3rd was 42 degrees followed by a reading of 39 degrees on the 4th (see Figure 3).

4. From Placer Times (First newspaper printed in Sacramento, 1849-50) No. 21:

NAPA - Jan. 11, 1862: First three days of this week were coldest ever known in this section. Ice froze ½ inch. (Emphasis added.).

5. Sacramento Daily Union (Tue. February 11, 1862) Vol. XXII, No. 3392, pg. 2, col. 3:

THE WEATHER ON THE SUMMIT: S.E. Dunham, who resides at Webber’s Station, one mile east from the Summit on the Henness Pass, has kept a rain gauge and a thermometer during the present Winter, and has also carefully measured the depth of snow that fell on the summit. ...(His) thermometrical table shows that there has been some very cold weather on the Summit: ...January 4th, 28 degrees below zero; January 10th, 15 degrees below zero; January 24th, 12 degrees below zero; January 25th, 13 degrees below zero; January 26th, 10 degrees below zero; January 27th, 4 degrees below zero; January 28th, 20 degrees below zero; January 29th, 10 degrees below zero; January 30st, zero; January 31st, 30 degrees below zero; February 1st, zero. We think there must be some mistake in the figures for January 4th and 31st, more likely the former should have been 18 and the latter 8 degrees below zero.. The mistake might have been made in transcribing the figures. January 28th was the coldest day we have had this year at Nevada, the thermometer, early in the morning, standing at 12 degrees above zero. At Skillman’s mill, about fourteen miles below here, the mercury fell to about zero, and it is not improbable that it was 20 degrees below zero at the Summit.– Nevada Democrat. (Emphasis added.)

EVIDENCE SUGGESTS GROUND WAS FROZEN IN WATERSHED AREAS VOID OF SNOW:

Frozen ground covered by fresh snow followed by heavy warm rain is the ideal combination for producing exceptionally high peak flows in basin rivers and streams. The 1855 Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, page 245, says it best:

The presence of a few inches of snow, with the subjacent earth frozen, so as to prevent it from imbibing, will greatly enhance the diluvial effects of even a moderate rain. The snow first absorbs the water and retains it until fully saturated, then the entire mass rapidly liquefies and flows off. This was the case in the freshets that were precipitated from the mountains and hills of California in March last. One of the most destructive floods that ever occurred in eastern Pennsylvania was occasioned by a warm rain of less than two inches, which fell when the ground was frozen and covered with three or four inches of snow. (Emphasis added).

Source: Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, showing the Operations, Expenditures, and Conditions of the Institution up to January 1, 1855. Washington: A.O.P. Nicholson, Public Printer, 1855. 86 ESTIMATED WATERSHED AREA WITH FROZEN GROUND COVERED BY :FRESH SNOW AFTER STORM OF JANUARY 5 AND 6, 1862:

A conservative lower limit for frozen ground would be around 2000 feet. The upper limit would be where the snow line was located on January 2, 3, and 4. (Refer to Supplement 1B, Section AS). This report indicates they were using stages instead ofsleighs to transport passengers between communities in the 4­ 5000 foot elevation range. Therefore, a reasonable estimate of the snow line would be 5000 feet.

Table C shows the total area of the Yuba watershed above Smartville is 1195 square miles. Using the pertinent altitude percentages, we are now able to compute the approximate area of the Yuba watershed above Smartville with frozen ground covered by fresh snow:

Lower limit: 2000-3000 ft == 14% 3000-4000 ft == 16% Upper limit: 4000-5000 ft == 14% 44%

CONCLUSION:

A burst ofheavy warm rain on a layer of fresh snow can create large quantities of sudden runoff. However, ifthe ground is frozen underneath the layer offresh snow, the situation becomes more volatile. For the lack of a better phrase, let's call it explosive-type runoff. Ifyou feel the use of the word explosive is an overstatement, look over the following examples:

1. Turn to Supplement 1, page 58, and read the item from the Weekly Butte Record dated Sat., January 25, 1862, and referring to January 10, 1862 about two men being caught on an island in the middle fork of the Feather River, etc.

2. Refer to Supplement 2, pages 75 -77. Review the material on catastrophic flooding in the Russian river valley.

3. Finally, refer to Diagram B. It is a segment of Dr. Thomas M. Logan's chart showing the oscillations of the Sacramento River (at Sacramento). Notice the precipitous rise in water level beginning * 8 A.M. on January 10, 1862. This remarkable increase in water level (from 21 ft. to 24 ft.) occurred when the river was already at or above flood stage.

* A report by Sacramento City Engineer Given and Consulting Engineer Grunsky on The Floods of1861-62 at and near Sacramento, compiledfrom daily papers.

NOTE: In the city ofSacramento, the Flood of January 1862 reached its highest point about th 9 o'clock P.M. on the 10 • The water level rose almost 6 feet between 7 A.M. and 9 P.M. Location: 7th & P.

Sources: Annual Report of the Surveyor-General of California for the year 1862 (page 45) and the Given-Grunsky report - cited above.

87

DIAGRAM-B

* CHART of THE OSCILLATIONS of THE SACRAMENTO RIVER (@ Sacramento) - 1849 through 1862

'/"'ttl lit'!' 'I ., i 24 r------. Wee IPltoU5 : 23 I- ' _-- " R{$9 i 22 ~ , .- , t2-i_I - r- - ,• ' l i i ~ ,._-; 20 {- t~,"~," ~'N ~ fQ) '---. ~-- . 7i ~

~..

* A Segment from the Chart of the Oscillations of the Sacramento River by THOMAS M. LOGAN, M.D.

SUPPLEMENT 5-A

DOES THE FLOOD OF DECEMBER 1867 QUALIFY AS A CHAPTER VI SCENARIO #4 FLOOD EVENT?

A. Review of Numerous Newspaper Articles Indicates the Following:

1. Sacramento Union (Wed., Dec. 25, 1867):

The city was not flooded, but surrounding areas were inundated.

2. Marysville Appeal (Fri., Dec. 27, 1867):

The Yuba city levee which cost $5,000 was carried away.

3. Marysville Appeal (Fri., Dec. 27, 1867):

With out much of a levee system, the town got by with very little damage. A few stores located in the low spots had an inch or so of water inside. Pressure from the river forced water to back up the drains.

4. The Oroville Record (January 1, 1868):

The [Feather] River here at no time during the storm attained so great a hight (sic) as it did during the flood on 1861-62, into some eight or ten feet.

5. Nicolaus:

The Levee at Nicolaus: The [Marysville] Appeal of Wednesday last, says: We learn from Capt. Brewington that the new levee built this season to protect the lands in the vicinity of Nicolaus from the waters of the Bear river, was broken by the present floods, and the country is again inundated. The same levee was carried away last winter and now as then the whole country is one vast inland sea..

6. The Sacramento Union (December 27, 1867):

— received a telegraph dispatch from Folsom Dec. 26th – 10 A.M. stating: Road impassable. The American River here has been as high as at the time of the big flood of 1861-62, but is falling rapidly.

7. The Sacramento Union (Wednesday, December 25, 1867):

At Brighton the American [river] was said to be sixteen inches higher yeasterday morning than during the flood of 1862; and in many other places the water stands on

91 ground never before inundated. At Burn’s slough and Brighton the river would have poured into the city, over the top of the levee but for the addition made to embankment by the Commissioners last spring. Just above Brighton the water is over the railroad track for a short distance, but not sufficiently so to do damage. The Sacramento river rose during the twelve hours ending at eleven o’clock yesterday morning about a foot and a half. During the afternoon it continued to rise slowly, and at seven o’clock in the evening stood twenty-two feet five inches above low water mark. About noon, the levee on the Yolo side broke, and a heavy body of water poured in upon the low lands in the county. From the roofs of high buildings in the city, the whole country around Sacramento appears to be covered with one vast body of water.

8. The Sacramento Union (Sunday, December 29, 1867):

THE STORM IN YOLO: The Democrat of Dec. 28th had the [following] annexed: ----- In Yolo county on Sunday last, the day on which the storm seems to have culminated in its fury all over the state etc.----- Referring to Cache Creek above Cacheville – the oldest settler tells us that higher up on the creek the water was higher on Monday than at any time since January 1853. Putah creek is reported to have been higher than ever before, the water standing over a foot deep in Jerome Davis’ barn.

9. Nevada Daily Transcript (Sunday morning, Dec. 29, 1867) Vol. XI No. 97, pg. 3, col. 1.:

A BEAUTIFUL SCENE: A number of persons have taken advantage of the beautiful weather of the past two days to go to the top of Sugar Loaf and look upon the vast sheet of water spread over the valley of the Sacramento and Feather rivers. From the coast range almost to the foothills on this side [of the valley] is one unbroken sheet of water, only relieved by the narrow strips of trees that at this distance appear like a fine threat traced upon the bright surface to mark the channel of the river. We are confident that the people who live in the overflowed region do not appreciate the beauties of high water, and will easily believe that “distance lends enchantment to the flood.”

B. Analyzing Major Runoff Producing Categories (Refer to Diagram A and Table VII-A)

1. PRECIPITATION (heaviest consecutive 3 day burst): Totals are similar to the January 1997 Flood event.

2. PRIME : Watershed is well primed – over 23 inches of precipitation fell in Nevada city during the 30 days prior to the warm storm.

3. STORM TEMPERATURE: According to the Nevada Daily Transcript of Dec. 24, 1867, on Saturday (the 21st) and Sunday (the 22nd ), the temperature at the South Yuba Canal Co. in Nevada City ranged from

92 48 to 53 degrees. This indicates that the storm was warm and that it was raining all the way to the summit (approx. 7,000 ft). Various comments in the newpapers refer to the warm rain that continued to fall on the 23rd.

4. SNOW (depth vs. elevation): Four days prior to high water date (HWD - see note below) the elevation of the 40 in. snow depth line in December 1867, was approximately 1,400 ft. lower than either February 1986 or January 1997. (See Table VII-A and Figure 7). Compared to these two latter events, the runoff yield from that portion of the watershed covered by snow was less in December 1867 because the depth of the snow pack was greater.

Note: High water date (HWD) at Marysville in December 1867 was the 25th. (Source: Ellis, W.T. Memories, My Seventy-Two Years in the Romantic County of Yuba. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon,1939).

C. Other Factors to Be Considered

1. Apparently the winds that accompanied the warm phase of the December 1867 storm were exceptionally strong.

The Grass Valley National (Dec. 23, 1867): A steady fall of rain from Saturday evening (the 21st) till last evening, accompanied with a heavy gale of wind (italics added), rendered traveling dreary and dangerous, especially after nightfall.

An interesting letter, dated December 26, 1867, to “Port Wine” from “Mash” quoted in The Mountain Messenger (Downieville, Sierra County, Saturday, Jan. 1, 1868) Vol. XIV, No. 31, pg. 3, col. 2, is found in the Bancroft Library of the University of California at Berkeley, and is quoted below:

When the snowy flakes ceased, down came the rain in torrents, and on Sunday evening there arose high winds, the severest that have ever been known here before (emphasis added). Small building and flumes were scattered promiscuously about by the tempest – leveled to the ground by the irresistible winds which came on each successive evening – Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. But Sunday evening was the severest, as the most damage was done at that time. The wind arose each night invariably between seven and eight o’clock. It is astonishing to see the number of trees that have fallen in the woods. The damage by the storm in the county, and in fact all over the state, must be enormous but we must acquiesce, for ‘tis done by “him whose hand the lightening forms, who heaves old ocean and who wings the storms.”

In a report from December 1867, The Sacramento Union claimed that the only storm that equaled this storm in severity occurred on New Year’s Eve 1854. This included a report from Cisco dated December 24th - 1:30 P.M.:

Rain continued without intermission all night, with very high winds.

93 2. A number of reports dealt with snow pack depletion during the warm phase of the storm. All snow pack losses were significant – most of them in the 3 to 4 ft. range. For example:

Letter from “Mash” to “Port Wine” (see above) –Eds. Messenger: — Well to begin with, the weather, which has been a long series of storms since the 16th of this month [December] up till to-day, when the bright sun has again appeared from the clouds, and the gloom that has enshrouded its fair disc from us for a period of ten days with the exception of an occasional smile of its beams, but to allure us for a moment, then withdraw from our sight, has passed away. From the starting of the storm for one week we had blustering storm, which greatly had the appearance of winter. The earth was covered with its snowy mantle to the depth of about four feet. The snow shoer’s hopes were invigorated by the acquisition, and they looked for the time soon to be when they could bring our their shoes with that great auxiliary; hope, in the trials for the supremacy of the snow-shoe turf; but for the present their chances are gone with the snow, as the heavy rains we have had has settled and melted it to one foot where it was four. (Emphasis added).

Nevada Weekly Gazette (Dec. 30, 1867):

FROM EUREKA TOWNSHIP: We conversed yesterday with W.C. Bradley, who is recently down from the Jim mine, near Eureka, which place he left on Christmas Day. He informs us that the snow had been eight feet deep in the canyon where the mine is situated, but it was only three or four feet at the time he left, the late rains having melted much of it off. (Emphasis added).

D. Discussion and Conclusions

1. Looking over the reports from Oroville and Marysville suggests that the brunt of the storm was shifted a little toward the south. However, the 15.55 inches of rain reported in four days at Nevada City indicates that the Yuba watershed was hit hard.

2. In spite of the fact that mining operations may have interfered with the elevation of the river bed, it is difficult to ignore the reports from Folsom and Brighton. These reports state that the water level on the American River was either equal to, or exceeded, the height of the flood of 1862.

3. Compared to February 1986 and January 1997, there was likely less runoff from the snow covered area in December 1867 because the snow pack was significantly deeper.

4. There were reports of exceptionally high winds. Mash’s letter, quoted in the Mountain Messenger of January 1, 1868, describes widespread loss of trees. Other things being equal, the stronger the wind, the greater the amount of snow melt.

5. All things considered, it is our opinion that December 1867 deserves major flood status and qualifies as a Scenario #4 type flood.

94 SUPPLEMENT 5-B

DOES THE FLOOD OF JANUARY 1875 QUALIFY AS A CHAPTER VI SCENARIO #4 TYPE FLOOD EVENT?

A. STORM CHARACTERISTICS ON JANUARY 18-19, 1875:

1. It was a two day storm-comparable, in some respects, with the “high water event” of December 1937. The two day precipitation totals in inches:

1875 1937

Grass Valley 7.45 10.34

Bowman Dam 9.50 13.14

Lake Spaulding* 9.50 (estimate) 13.63

Note: At Bowman Dam, thirteen inches of snow fell the night of January 17th and early morning the 18th, 1875.

2. The storm suddenly turned warm - on January 18th, the water level behind Bowman Dam rose from 52 ft. to 67 ft. in nine hours.

a. The Truckee Republican (Jan. 20,1875):

The fall of six or more inches of snow last Wednesday night was almost of the consistency of water and furnished no foundation for good sleighing. Since that time to the present we have had an abundance of snow, accompanied with unusually high winds, and a decided rain storm which commenced Sunday night [Jan. 17th]. This rendered the snow so heavy that awnings and shed roofs were broken down – a rather singular feature in Truckee, where deep falls of snow are anticipated and provided against....Shovels and spades were in demand all day Monday to relieve the roofs of dwellings and business houses from the weight of snow upon them. (Emphasis added)

b. Sacramento Daily Union (Tues. Feb. 9, 1875) Vol. XLVIII, pg.2, col. 3:

METEOROLOGICAL: the following meteorological record was kept at

95 Carnelian bay, Lake Tahoe, Placer county, by Dr. Geo. M. Bourne, late of San Francisco:

1875 Date 6 a.m. Noon 6 p.m.

Jan. 15 16 38 20 Jan. 16 25 32 30 Jan. 17 22 40 34 Jan. 18 34 41 37 Jan. 19 40 42 30 Jan. 20 22 36 21 Jan. 21 19 40 --

Note: The rain fall of January 18th and 19th, (combined) with the heavy thaw, caused a rise (in water level) from 9 to 10 inches within 30 hours.

c. Mountain Messenger (Saturday, Jan. 30, 1875):

SCALES DIGGINGS, Ed. Messenger (dated Jan. 23, 1875): Times are quite lively here at present. Last Sunday it began to rain and continued doing so until some time in the night. On awakening Monday morning [Jan. 18] there was about eight inches of fresh snow on the ground with a heavy rain falling. This rain storm continued for nearly thirty-six hours. (Emphasis added)

B. WATERSHED CONDITIONS:

1. Adequately primed (See Table VII-A).

2. Distribution of snow demonstrates the huge impact snow pack depth can have on the magnitude of the peak flow in nearby streams. This is especially true where significant amounts of new snow are involved. Two days before the HWD of Jan. 19th, 30% of the Yuba watershed was covered with snow in the 10 to 40 inch depth range.

C. EVEN WITH ONLY A MODERATE BURST OF WARM RAIN (OF RELATIVELY SHORT DURATION), THE RESULTS ARE IMPRESSIVE.

1. Bridges and dams either damaged or washed away:

Sacramento Union Supplement (Monday, Jan. 25, 1875):

96 THE STORM IN PLACER COUNTY, DAMAGE TO PROPERTY: ...by midnight Monday, Auburn ravine was higher than had been known since the reputed cloud-burst of 1867... We have heard of no lives lost as sometimes happens in sudden overflows, but damage to property along the river, by way of bridges, dams, etc. was great. On Bear river the Gold Hill dam, that turned water into the ditch that supplied Gold Hill and other places below here is gone. This will be a heavy blow to farmers, as many relied on this ditch for water for irrigating their gardens, clover patches and orchards. The Van Gleson dam, used to run the old Van Gleson saw-mill, burned down some time ago, but which was to be rebuilt this coming Summer also on Bear river, a short distance above the Gold Hill dam is gone. It is also reported that the big Bear river dam, a short distance above Colfax on Bear river, used to turn water in Bear river ditch, that runs past Auburn and supplies the miners and agriculturalists in this section is washed away by the torrent. Of the bridges across Bear river between this and Nevada county, the Crandell bridge, leading from Colfax, is gone entirely; the narrow gauge or Teamsters bridge, as it is called, leading from the same place, has suffered the loss of one bent; Taylor’s bridge on the road from Colfax to Nevada, is damaged so much that it is considered not altogether safe. Gautier’s bridge from Auburn to Nevada, has suffered material damage; Rice’s bridge across the north fork of the American on the road leading from Colfax to Iowa Hill has been entirely swept away; and Ford’s Bar bridge, on the American, leading from Gold Run to Iowa Hill suffered the same fate; Lyon’s new bridge across the north fork, on the new turnpike leading from Auburn to the Divide, we learn has also gone. There may have been other and even more serious losses that we have not heard of. (Placer Herald, Jan. 23rd - emphasis added.)

The North San Juan Times (Saturday, Jan. 33, 1875) Vol 2, No. 44:

NOT TRUE – there was a report in town on Wednesday last that Freeman’s bridge, which spans the middle Yuba river, had been severely damaged by the late rains. This is not true.

Thomas Freeman informs us that the water at his bridge was not as high during the late storm, by from 16 inches to two feet as it was in 1861 and 1862 (emphasis added).

The Mountain Messenger (Saturday, Jan. 30, 1875) Vol XXI, No. 35, pg. 2, col 1:

THE FLOOD IN MARYSVILLE: The water began to rise in the streets about seven o’clock Tuesday evening, Jan. 19th, and continued rising until it was four feet deep in the Western Hotel... So rapid was the rise there was no opportunity to save property.... During the early part of the day the citizens worked like beavers strengthening weak and low points in their levees, but about dark they discovered

97 that the city was sure of being flooded and turned their attention to saving property . D. CONCLUSIONS:

1. The flood of January 1875 does not qualify as a Scenario #4 Type Flood event mainly because of the moderate size and brevity of the warm phase of the precipitation burst – approximately 36 hours.

2. However, this flood is a great example of the explosive role the snow pack can play in the production of record or near record flows on streams and rivers.

98 SUPPLEMENT 5-C

DOES THE FLOOD OF FEBRUARY 1881 QUALIFY AS A CHAPTER VI SCENARIO #4 TYPE FLOOD EVENT ON THE YUBA WATER SHED?

I. Analysis of Individual Storm and Watershed Factors That Determine Runoff (see Diagram A).

A. Precipitation

The three day burst precipitation amounts lag behind January 1997 by approximately 30% and February 1986 by over 40%.

B. Prime

The watershed is well primed. (See Table VII-A).

C. Temperature

According to data extracted from the original Bowman Dam record, the temperatures were in the low to mid 40's on February 2-3, 1881. This is a good indication that it was raining all the way to the summit.

D. Snow (depth vs. elevation)

The snow pack in February 1881 was significantly deeper, prior to the High Water Date (HWD), than either February 1986 or January 1997. Comparatively speaking, a greater percentage of the actual snow melt and rain remained in the snow pack after the February 1881 HWD.

II. Miscellaneous Reports

A. Nevada Daily Transcript (Fri. Morning, Feb. 4, 1881) Vol. XLI, No. 126, pg. 2, col 3:

THE STORM: ...It rained clear to the Summit and the snow was disappearing rapidly...At 3 P.M. the water had but 6 inches more to rise before it reached the top of the levee. Sacramento is considered safe.

B. Weekly People’s Cause (Sat., Feb. 5, 1881) Vol XXI, No. 41, pg. 3, col 6: (Reports are from Red Bluff and vicinity)

FLOOD ITEMS: At 10 o’clock last night the Sacramento had risen to the 27 ½ foot ma r k — one foot higher than the great flood of 1877-8. 99 At 3 o’clock this morning the river attained its greatest height, 28 ¼ feet above low water mark, and within a foot of the great flood of 1861-2 (emphasis added). We visited the bridge and east side this morning at 8 o’clock and found the water had receded to the 27 foot mark.

C. Weekly People’s Cause (Sat., Feb. 5, 1881) Vol XXI, No. 41, pg. 3, col 6:

We ascended to the top of V.P. Baker’s residence this morning at 9 o’clock, and with the aid of a large field glass we could see for miles east and south of this city, disclosing the fact that there was almost one continuous sea of water to the high ground east, and as far south as an observation could be taken.

D. Georgetown Gazette (Friday, February 4, 1881):

THE COUNTRY FLOODED FROM COLUSA TO THE BAY! Special Telegram to the Gazette. Sacramento, Feb. 3d, 3:50 p.m. River twenty-six feet; raining hard. City safe, but anxious. Yolo side break four hundred feet. Country flooded from Colusa to Benicia. (Signed) C. H. JONES.

E. Mountain Messenger (Sat. Feb. 19, 1881) Vol. XXVII, No. 39, pg. 2, col. 2:

It is estimated that three thousand five-hundred square miles (emphasis added) of the Sacramento valley was overflowed in the recent freshets.

III. Conclusions

A. All factors considered, this flood event on the Yuba watershed falls a little short of being in the same class as February 1986 and January 1997. The item that cinched it was the uneven distribution of the precipitation. During the three day period (January 28- 30,1881) 11.04 inches of rain fell at Loutzenheiser’s Drugstore on the northwest corner of Main and Auburn Streets in Grass Valley. But, during the next two days, only .67 inches was recorded. Then, from February 2-4, 1881, another 4.39 inches fell.

B. According to W.T. Ellis (My Seventy-Two Years In The Romantic County of Yuba,California - see Chapter II), a peak flow of 17 ft. 7 in. was reached at the “D” Street bridge in Marysville on February 1, 1881. Three days later, (February 4), an even higher peak was recorded at the same bridge – 18 ft. 2 in.

C. The two day lull in precipitation* at Grass Valley also occurred at Bowman Dam (as copied from original record). From January 29 through January 31, 1881, the amount was 14.25 inches. There was a lull on February 1-2 when only 1.25 inches fell. Then, on February 3 & 4, another 8.65 inches was recorded.

* The main reason the time of the lull varies one day between Grass Valley and Bowman Dam is because of a difference in observation times – one was read in the a.m., the other in the p.m.

100 D. The two day lull in the precipitation was followed by a much smaller burst of precipitation than fell before the lull. This fact, combined with the extra storage of snow melt and rain in the deep snow pack, prevented this high water event from reaching the level of a Scenario #4 Type flood on the Yuba watershed. Farther north, on the Sacramento River at Redding and Red Bluff, there is little doubt that February 1881 ranks among the top three or four floods of the past 150 years.

101

SUPPLEMENT 5-D

DOES THE FLOOD OF JANUARY 1896 QUALIFY AS A CHAPTER VI SCENARIO #4 TYPE FLOOD EVENT?

A. Bowman Dam (elevation 5,350 ft.) Weather Data - extracted from original record

Date Precipitation Temperature Remarks 1896 (in inches) 7 a.m. M 7 p.m.

Jan. 12 0 36 40 - 13 .77 35 39 35 Raining & snowing 14 .75 35 40 38 15 1.48 38 35 38 Turned to snow at 10 a.m. 16 5.10 38 39 40 Turned to rain in night 17 6.21 40 42 40 Snow 1 ft. deep at lumber yard 18 3.40 40 39 38 19 .64 38 - 36 20 3.13 41 43 43 21 1.65 40 38 34 Snow about all gone here

Note: Six (6) inches of rain fell between 4 p.m. January 16 and 7 a.m. January 17, 1896

B. The Colfax Sentinel (Fri., Jan. 17, 1896) Vol 6, No. 23, pg. 3, col. 5:

WINTER’ S DROUTH BROKEN THIS WEEK BY WELCOME SHOWERS: It has long been too dry to plow in the valleys and the grain fields suffered irreparable damage from lack of moisture. The surface miners in this region have had their ditches and boxes ready, and the ground well shaken up with powder for the past two months. They have been unable to work, however, on account of the absence of the regular winter rains which are depended upon for water supply.

C. Conclusions based on the above observations and information (refer back to Table VII-A).

1. Compared with other major floods, the burst of heavy rain was relatively brief.

2. The one foot of snow remaining on the ground at the lumber yard on January 17, following an overnight deluge of six inches, suggests that snow pack storage was a factor above 5,000 ft.

3. The 7 p.m. temperature of 40 degrees on the 16th, combined with the 40 degree reading at 7 a.m. the morning of the 17th, puts the snow line at approximately 7,000 ft., – which is near the summit. 4. Watershed was not adequately primed. 103 D. Additional comments:

According to W.T. Ellis, the high water date at Marysville was on the 18th of January. The reading on the gage at the D Street Bridge was 18 ft. 5 in. This is 3 inches higher than the flood of February 1881. However, we cannot draw the conclusion that the flood of January 1896 produced the highest peak flow because of the effects of downstream movement of debris from mining operations. Mr.Ellis was fully aware of this problem. In answer to a question put to him: Do you keep daily records of the gauge readings at the D Street Bridge? His reply was: Yes; I commenced doing this fifty years ago, (on April 1st, 1893), and readings were taken at 7:00 A.M. each day of the year... For many years also, I had surveys made each year, obtaining a cross-section of the Yuba River at the D Street bridge to ascertain how much deposit of debris was made, as the channel and overflow area continued to raise, but, after 1909, when I was satisfied that the river bed would continue to scour and lower, I ceased having these surveys made.

E. Conclusion:

In spite of a dry fall, this storm produced a lot of water, but the available evidence indicates it was not large enough to qualify as a Scenario #4 Type Flood Event.

104 SUPPLEMENT 6

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED RETURN PERIODS FOR CHAPTER VI SCENARIO FLOODS

1. Scenario #1: One or two times in 1,300 years.

2. Scenario #2: Three or four times in 1,300 years.

3. Scenario #3 (Type B): One or two times in 450 years.

4. Scenario #4: Five times in 160 years:

a. December 1964 - Scenario #3 (Type A) b. January 1997 c. February 1986 d. December 1867 e. Assuming that one of the following would qualify (review Chapter I - Brief History of Early Floods): 1839-40, 1845-46, 1849-50, the resulting frequency of Scenario #4 type flood events would be one time every 30-35 years (160 years/5).

105

APPENDIX

PLEASE NOTE: The map Plates are drawn to approximate scale and are for illustrative purposes only. They are based on information contained in California Road and Recreation Atlas, Benchmark Maps: Medford, Oregon, 1998. Locations of highways, roads and streams are approximate, but elevations are accurate.

Some locations that had useful precipitation data were not in the Yuba River watershed, but have been included where possible. For example, Greek Store, (5600 ft. Mean Sea Level) and Robbs Saddle (5900 ft. MSL) are in the American River drainage basin. Greek Store is located at N 39.075, W 120.305, and Robbs Saddle is N 38, W 120.37.80 according to the California Data Exchange Center locator. The approximate location of these stations may be determined by checking page 64 of California Road and Recreation Atlas (above).

PLATE I NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Crescent City 44'

, Manzanita Lake 5856'

a 50 100 150 « , , miles ,... 1 • Urban Places · • Creeks/Rivers N ,,-v Roads/Highways .. Lakes/Reservoirs I PLATE II NORTHERN. SIERRA NEVADA

South Fk.

0 '22, 44 • e miles ,.....• Urban Places 1 .j:>. RoadslHighways \C ( ...... CreekslRivers )J LakeslReservoirs Santa Rosa 160'

X Mt. Diablo I 3849' PLATE III CENTRAL CALIFORNIA 0, 22 44 « , , miles • Urban Places Roads/Highways ~ -- Creeks/Rivers' I LakeslReservoit:s PLATE IV Inset Historic YUBA RIVER BASIN Mining Camps

1. Steep Hollow 2. Jones Bar 3. Freemans Bar 4. Fosters Bar 5. Columbus House

pI

Jackson Meadows Res . .. 6036'

Fordyce~-K 6402'~ "' ; 10..) .!$ .(2jJ .is ~~ P/J!)j 4j .Deer Creek Powerhouse Cisco Glove ..,. .5923 's Flat Res. 3700' /

3069' ~ o 5 10 .. . f , , ~edDog / .... miles 800,\ Grass Valley 241l/ .. '. .1 • Towns/Mining Camps Gold RUI} ..... ~ RoadslHighways 1 3144" N" / t1A .. -- __ Secondary Road ~ CreekslRivers I ..-. Lakes/Reservoirs December 1861 -- Snow (Depth vs. Elev.) Yuba Watershed High Water Date: 9th

70 ' " ' I ,I " , ' I -," I I' ,' I~ \ I I ( 1 I I ,; f j !! I, I , -, ' I , I ' I I ' ! , , I : ' ~ I ! ,\ , i ( I ' I I \ I t I ! I I I ) ! I I I : " _ I !! i ! \ ,~ I : f I! \: I : ,\: ~ :' I j; : I I I 1: I!: I : I ! i 1 I --11- ---,- '-' ___ J L':"":"--o-- L __ 60 - I I ! I I \ \ I 1 ---,-- __ r 1 I I I, I I, I I I ,I I I • I ~--~--:-'-J-+-~' i -- ~_; __ ~~_L: ~ ~----;---l-'-- -~,--, - j -C-.l-l--l'~-~--i_-~J.- I - ~J. -----' - ~ :~~------l-- I ~-~~ .JJJ-L~ ~ . " 'i': I' i i, : I ' : ' , ' , f ' , " " " , ; , I ' , I ' ' : I ' : " - ; S~e ~ectlOn D] : , I I I ~' ' I I ! ( f I I ) I : 1 I \: f" I I j ,I I ' l I I I I j I I; , I i i ~ , - I ' ' , " ! " ii,,',: See, Sedton ' , ' 1 ' , I I ' ' , , I " , ' I ' I' I I ' , I, I , , "r, " 'I I ' , ' ; I I 'I ',' : I , , ' , : : I t I -6 ', " ' " ,S, . ~,. e - $ectlo' -" n$.' A.' 2. I : ' - , , ; 'i ;, :, i ' :, " : : '! !': I " : i :' ; 4 [ I i:: : ! Ii i : 50 ~,;-~ ~ --~ --'----'---r; --,-T t- , --;- -,- -~-~-- r--t-,-:~ - -: --- ;--~ --:- t~--;---i- --+ _J._~ -;-- L - -- :-...:---- - ~---~-~ --I~I- H-t--,'.i t~,! &f2r+l-- - , ! !! :' I i! !', ' I I" _".1 , I' !", j i 'I 11ytli I I' ; I, I : ' ~ , . - ! I I ' , ., I ' ,I ' " , )25" hi '" 3'0' i!. i ' ~ , ~ I , I ' , ! '" ': ',' " I ' i i $' ' s' I - I , , J I IX! , t11 . , " I - , I " , , , , , I , ' : I ,:,' 1 ' ee eqtJqn ' Ii i ! i -5 , I II! i I I : : ; IIi I I ~: I I ~ I I \ I , : i I I ( i ' \ ' -! - ! i . ~ ~ ; , ; :: .9 40 ~' ...:---.:.--'------'-- 1.._'_' J - ,_L-4---1-_,__ ~I __ ~_L~ _ _ :-':'-'----o--+--- f --,-J--L-I-- ' ~ - -.L-r--'-- 1---'- :..E± - ' '1-"lJJ'" i-Hi - :O I~ 1,.· ~' _ ':' _ ,_L _ j, _" " I I ' 1 I I: I I \ I ,I I I: I ,- I' I, I (J I , ~, I, i '; " ,1 : : ' 1 i " , "I ' 1 1 I : ' : ; I ' ' , ' : .. , ! i ,'" Ii ' , - -: .) : , ; , ' i ' '-'....= i '~_ ' ,: , ' ' i ' I ~. 1 I I ; : I ! \ ! r ,:' ; _ I . ; I -, i ll 1 i I ) I , -:, 'i .~ ! I j : I i I' I "' , , I: I " > ' I """! ' I e­ " 1; I . ; , : : !: : i ' 1 \ > ; r !:: ~ I I . i i ! ! ! ! ~ 30 -,-~' ~;-~-~ -:-~-I - :--~- -~ --~-+--+~11 -1-:---, -,.,--.:: 1--"1' ---Ni- o-LV-;-2'-t S;t ,-~ - -t-l-. i~-!--~ -(-t--_·--i'-· 'I ~ I > ,> I' , " " I • cl ,- 1 : :::' I i S,nQw fa l ~ri exel ' i . 00.~ : : :' : : : I l'lf19 ~2(!)/(l! i I ! : i ' j ,i : I \ I , I :! Iii i \ ) : ! i i !' I j ~ ! , " "I' > , • , , ,! I ' iI. ,.. + -, .. i ' I I : I ; 20 - ~ "-:-, ----,--'--;--,------~--,-- -"- --,--'----: .. -'"- lIn' : - -,'--- -! S: ee~S.ectlO.jl-1;)rt-- ntsL. -i--.-'-+---. --L,---r ·- , I I !: r i:' 1 i -r --:1- ~ i": r ) ; l ": ' -~ ) Ition .. ;. I 1 ' , , ! I, I Ii:' 6rass Valley : 1 , , ', ,I:: i I ' i . i ~ ' 8: "'t> : !A i , - :a) Just; pt;ior to flo dipnoQuqirig I , - 1 : 1 ' , 'l'ee eo IOn 1 ' I ' I ' , -' .! ~ . , i ' : ' ! , : ' " ', I , 1 , : : , - [ I I :' . i : storrn(~ee $e-cti ns A/Jr& i A~ ) ')1 ! I I ,: I :! Ii: I) ~ -,- j . -I ,; i -i I j ) ,) .! \ , i ' i '-j i : 10 ~-, - - ---,--,-,~ ' t-0-1-_: ,T - ---;---.,--- > , ------;-"~b)-J, ust. '-aft.erhea:v.y -st. Ol1niT-+- --;-- --:, -- - ~ - '-- ; ~ I I I : 1 'I ! \ ! 1 I ~ I :: ' I' ! ; -\ i 1. l -~ i 1. 1, _. -- I' r -'! -i : ' l: ~ I 'ii: i I '17' h; !, ' 1)1- See SectIOn 11 i '1' I' I I : ' I i ,. I ! : . ; I ,t : ' I. _ 1· · 1 ., i_ I . \ - :i. . _! -- -.i i -,: , . I j 1 ) ,; " i f 2);- .Review!"&n wp!icki UeJiletiop. :; \ , ,- I " ' 1 >;. : -j- ., ,- ,- 1-' 1· -- I I I' I ... , - l I. iDurin-gHeavlf-Wa 'stows" [fablb ;I: A ! , ii, I' I , I o I I i ~ ..,. , ~ ~ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ~11) I Elevation in (100's) feet '" January 1862--Snow (Depth vs. Elevation) Yuba Watershed (Storm #1) High Water Date: 11th

70 ...... --"I '.' ','-"-,-;~-, T-: -~ :.-,,:-:-1-- T :'-,r:TT~':- ' T':-;- T~ --:-,- , ''-l- ',-i--r''--r ~' ":-'~'''- ' -r ',' -'' '': ' '' ;····1···:·· :';-'1-'" I ; '. . I ' '. '. '. ' I. ' I " i . ' , . '. ' ', 1st JaJ,il. , " I. ii,I . :' I , I ' "'' " .' , ~ . : , !, i, ; ;:' '. :: i : '" " I . i :. I : i , ' : ' ! \ 'l :,::; j ~er_ Jch~~ I ~~ L U . §S.~~1~~11I! ! ~~ '-.u 60 ' , :!"", " : : ~_L-, .. !--+. -l.---..;. -L. .. , ... L .. c .. ,_""7 ·--_·+-.. ,.. .. ,"'"·, .. ~· C-T" . ' ': ' I ! " ' !' , "j" .c ... J.. - ..... · '·-·:. · +- · ·~, .. -'.. ·'-.. I-.. r... -+ .t ... -', --.. ' ~ : ," i, : ! . " I I, ' . i, ' , '. ".nde.ctiO.n l. C 3'c I ' I " "" , ; 'i: :! , :: I ;' " i I , i ' ; ' , ' : " ;, : 'i , ' , I ,:, i (7th ' ', , " " ; ; I I ' I " I i,: 'i' " , , ' I ' ' ;, " '. I : : , , " 'i Sect.lqn ,c 3" i :: I ' ': : I I ! i , " '! ' ! ~<:1e, i : , i : ' 'J : : i ;', , ;" 1 I " I ! I ; !' " " I : i i II ~ " i, i i, i ; '. ':_ .l5i-O." .;.J_.~ .. .;.. __ , 50 ,.,.~...l!.;.;--i·j>t l i-·i T -·!· "T~t--:-n T':'TTT1 ' , ' " " , : I I I ' Ridg~ l/-bp\ie ' ' " . . ' , i, i : ; , , ,; 'I ' 'i ' :, -5 I I ' ! , Q11}eglll : , : ! , i ' i I 'I " ; ,I I ,I ! ; i' I . ; ; .5 40 , .' .' .' . I ' .' i . ' " ! , . : S.e c.t'U. A"e2 ''''':''_.'''''-;-'1' ... I'-i''' ';-r';-~"~-~ · ~ · i·:··L.;._l·;_t~-·i lri- .c- ~~ -- ~ - : '" J,hT r-; : ; I , :,::.,= 1, '--:.--n. l i : !' ' , I.' I ", ': , '! .'I ,I Ii ' , ' I i , i , , i : I , ! I": : Q' O" i . I ' I I I i -- I I ' , , I ' , , , ' '-1- . , , ', ' sectlor-AS -----' ~ 30 i· f -' .. : : ~; - i-~-T" j· · T'·-' .. : ' · · .L!-s1· 1~ · ~¢~~i~~-(f~:-i : ~ .:-~ -,- -~ ' , :. :", , i i ": ,, ~ : i I ! I ' i , ! ! i' , i " ~ ;I ji Ii: II' i , ; l : : ; I : : I I i' f I, ::: 'I i : ! , ; I i, i 00= ' . . . i. G. I'a;s' s. ' V: ali.le~ f6th\.:. ,: _ -1. _ __ L.._ :- :. - - -.~..,;~....:.. L... - ._- -~--,- ~ - ~ -'j -~-"'r- ' .;.1. "--1- •. L_;. __ -<_.~. "-;'-1" 20 -_.I :: J.";"_ - -: rr · : · lT-r-l.A~~-.: -r --,-~ " , , ' , I i I . I i

!I I 'In,. I ' I ! t I " I ! I I . I '-: J ~ee ,SyctiQn 'I : : , , ' , , ii' ,,' ,,: ! I I ' , ' I! " " : i I ,~ I f"\Ai J!Vk?r : - :, I 8 I OI I ___ L_l~ , _____,_ ---I~---l-l1I .,--r--; .. 1 ..;.--- .., ..... - ;- .--T+ ...... 10 _1_'1. T' - - ,--0-,--- t--: ! '"!- - ", :- " : " , I ' . c-.~.--, tlI " - C' ~ -l-"".L-'I ' , ,-.LLL !· i·1 ' I , j I I l' 'I" " ,I I I r I , ' 1 i ! I : I ,! Se~ ~~c~ion : O 3 ~, : $ee ~ctidn~ Al &; ~3 I ; , :: I 'I " ,: I : " , J: I : , , I : ' ' , " ~"" i , ~ " I ' , ': I , : : I : ,, ' , ~ I I I I' , ' : See tjctlOns ~l &; C2 ! ~..L __ ..c..~~ j _ .. ,.. ~ ___ .'_ 1_ '-_.. _ .. _ .__ .-'.. J _ L.. . ___0 .. o .-.' .. -L _ ._'_ .:.... - ---- '_. ~ .---._. - ~ - ~ -- .L-'--__ -~-.+-- -. - - i _~ J ___ I ~ ~ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 ib' Elevation (in IOO's of feet) 1\, January 1862--Snow (Depth vs. Elev.) Yuba Watershed (Storm #2) High Water Date: Night of the 22nd or early morning of the 23rd 140 -'I' r ---~-~ -,-.-- ~ .'-'-1-----; '1--'; -iT -~-:l-T-!r-;-c- ;--;:'-- I "" ~-T~-i- - -;-'--~-:I-'-rT-,i-T-- : -' I, I, I I ' , , , . I !, , ; ; , , ; I ' ' I ' I ' ' i : : ! : ! i ! ii i ,: : ; !; I ; f I ! ' :: : I I: : ,

! I I ! I , , I , ' I' I , 120 I .--,-- --·--1---,-.-...,..---,._--... -- -- f-: -: T-] -:--~-l -r--i J-i-,L,--~-H--i- - ; - -H+---~-t-L---l-'t-!~·-- I -;--- I -+ .[ : :,; I ! i I ,I i : : [ : I :! '; I I , ' i l ' : ' , I : Minu~3P.t)" , I ' i I I i ! ! I I; I ! : ! I i r I I, : I ; I I , , ' ! I , I " I' I I . I I , ' : ' : I I Ii i I I , :tHat !fell ~f1:e l1 I ,i , ' I " I I I I ,' . ' I I , ithe 18th) ; i +--- - ~----.:....-+--....--+- ---+ - -i-.- ~ ---- 100 " :--+--L:-Li-iLI---: ~--- L-t -~ --T '-- ~ ~:~-'--- 11 -r-:- - ' _t_ ---~ --- ~--~ 1' ~- --~- '--_--_r __~ __ ~ -I': T ~ 'i' I I I ! ": I I ' ::, I I , : ~ : i r ; , 'i , 'i 'I I ,: I : I' I : S~e i Seciio~ 134 fj I I "! , " I I ' ' I : /1 .9 80 -,--,------l-i-~.-c-:-1 :-- ,- -L-; -L~.-LLl- - I --iJ -!.. --.--, ... : ... _~_L t----l- .I-o--i-l-~--'~-'-+ -! .... J.£I--I l-i---l i '-~-L-Li--U- .9 , I I I ' I" • I , ! ' • I '-" I : [ , ': I ' I ! I ! i I i! : i I I : ! ! I i ' d ; , : I ! , [ I : '1Sf ' i Q. I I ; i " i i i I ! i I I I I ~ i : i I ' ! .1., __ I_ ~ 60 -+-_.-'. . -:--- l rr~- L -1--+ 1+-;-: ~ - !-!-;--:- rt+ -7' ~ I , I 1 " I I I rTJ.== I i' I ' I I , 'I' I ~':"i' I " . 1 ' , , 40 .- -. +,-:- L: __ ,-_L!_, __ :_:_~._~~_L' --~- LL;_ __ , -~ L. __ -L L- , _ i.._ :_l~ t~~~1 ~ '- ; ··-!·--- I- --T----~---· .. · ·-- t--·T --r- [ . ' i ' :: I i' I l ' , li La POli e, I, , , A 11& A5 ' ! , I I , I ; , : ; i : II .' ; i j :: I ! I ~ _ : . ,' 1 ~ , I ~ ,~ I I I 'I I I ; I i i, I I 0 , I I I ' , . I : i i " I '. ; " ' : i. I 18th' i, 1l7th L ! ; I , : : I I I i' I : I : i I : : I : i : ; i I' ,,:: :: I : ; ~e~ Section' B3 II : 20 -j--:-i...... ~ Li. -~- .-~-i--L II -~ +_L _-LL~-1- i- I-L l_ i - ~... ~ -.;-- .. ~-L1· -L_;_L~_. .:... i ,+--J j-I-- -~ , • ! ; ! i ! I i, i i ' ~ ! ;! !,:', ...;. - , I i : See Sectl(!ln ,BJ! Ii! ' , i " " ! i I Ii! : '·__ I ...... , :!:· I . i ' : ; i ' ;-I -r-I i :! ; jl i ; i I I : See SeqtJ?n ,B! : : ! , ~ ~h17 i . ; ;. i i i' I' ; i ! i • I i 1 ., '! iNe\jaqa i i • 1 I i I~: ' ..;...,.-. , i " I ii , , I : " , . . '• • I , j ' I l ' . I : ,f i i " : ) Se,e Sectroll 3 , ;O ty ! i i ! i ..J...... · ! ' ! 1,D.Q" ! ~ : ; ,I : , ; ! , ;,', i i, I' -:-tJ 1 I.: ' ':' :.,. '. ' _~;_ LL~L ___: .!_L' __ .: _ ~J: : "l _ I L;_;' :_-L _~ .16~:i_ ,": __~j_l __ ~ -~-~-._Lf-J._Ll_L" _LLLj _I L ___ '. 1 0 __ __ ,,_j_.. _1.. I I I . ~_L'_: __ -" '--l ~ I 10 20 30 I 40 50 60 ~ 70 80 fi), Elevation in (IOO's) feet ~ March 1907--Snow (Depth vs. Elev.) Yuba Watershed (Storm) High Water Date: 19th

120 =lil\-;~~Jflf~~~c~~ljtl=Sf~H~fij}~4$~~~~I1S~~f~c=JtJt~lt=tJ*t1; +-f- -TIr{-+ltl-!t1fff!'Ehl+tr±-f:f L, -ciTf- t+t-T tTrr~l- - -I-i'+:rt-t= 100 ~nC~lF~~~~'=Ij~.~~ -Jif£m:~S.~~, ~l;~~~~~~I~~~~~fSt =~l[J~~;-"-~ ~fIF .L~: ==I~ ~:l=l=:: - j::~=L-E I :::LI = I =::- I ::: ::-:I=:J=::r::: ~ :II :::t--tti=: :: l:: ::t= - :::'L::~:t:- :: :::j::: :~:::J=l = :::lJ-)T-::C:::- ==*t= -'IJ::: :::--::- :: =c::r. t- TIT·. .... +I:::i-+++-- H 1=-1-1+ r · I~+H -+-1 -11--1+-1-+--+4,++ -, ++1

'i 80 tlf1JIJir=::1::Fr-'-+ 11- CI++=I-H ITTFH=I --l---I-+-F=l---·I·-·-·L-·--I-·-·J_1_ .. _L_..1·__ I··_L __ ±___L_ lI""'·I_···L· __ I_ ·_L± ___ L[_-L. __ I__ .....r - I--- I- - 1 - -5 1j:l-R-l=I-·I--+. ~+ - I -- I ++i r r- -I---l l-- ... - [ - 1 -- r-I -+-I- I--tl--i ------.__ .. L _._ .... J_._. L. . _L__ __._.1.. _.. _...l. /L._. __L _____ L __ J - -._ L -. I --- ~-~ . - ....=

...."-'= .= Q.. QI ~g 00=

} (:) ~ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 (b' • Elevation in (lOO's) feet ~ January 1909--Snow (Depth vs. Elev.) Yuba Watershed High Water Date: 15th

140 -lli -- l------l--::::O=------,--[---1-- ~_-::t:-j--~----·-·:---I--.J[- ---::Lff=I=f---'= .-I-·f -T:f=~ =+- -t::::---- -~Ff ------=$- -J:::Jj=p=lfl·------1------=f=T:::E----- ~$t~TC ..• -~c .·~+~ct~---=mc -1-ftj----+r--=F. •• jFLy~ -- +~.·~."~ •

~ ---l-ttl~lI~¥L------H-lc-~l~ --Jr'l1+---j1-l--

f 60 ~l~~~~rti~1~i~~i~0iji~+ij~=,,~ii~ii=I~~~~' --f----,- -- --l-- -- -::::r-::::t---- . -.------.•.- ---. -- ---.. -.- .. :-•. --.1-·--. --.r---l.-.---.---- _-.-. -r. -- ---=.1--- ·-. -. __ -. -_.... - -.. --.--. -.---- - ·i--_ ---.-.- T.. - . -::t.-..- --.---- -_.--r-r-..-.. .-._--. -- 1-.-. 1-. -..- ... --1.- - .-.. - 40 ----I --- -- 1------+- 1--- -1----+- ±+~- =_~ ~-= =::=~=~ :~~: -=:=-~=-- ---~:f:..~~ ~.-. =- -=-~ =r__ =~. _-~ =~_ -~:=~~=-: :=-:~~::-~= =-== =- _- =--~:_.I- -_.tl-f-:= ::-I-T=.-.-.-_r:.~ ~= -__l--j =::-: _.-±===:-==.--. -i:=_: -=- --~~_I_= _ =- ::::~-:-- == == ···l.---. T--m+~+f -- -rt---l.· · · - · b'- -~cl~+l}~-i-Tl-l.· .. -

~ C> o +Litll ..• 3JJ±hl .~~4"E .. ±ltl~tJ •. bttHJ.1rL:tt±rrl±1~= ~ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 (i) • Elevation in (lOO's) feet ~ December 1955--Snow (Depth vs. Elev.) Yuba Watershed High Water Date: 23rd 80 ¥-i+cll------+----- l------~~--~-+-I----11-t-l-+-r--~Il3J=tJ-----i :1- :EEr=tTT~~ - ~ l:: Il~ 1tnr:=g= -~=i~=I:=::::~_: =:"l~= ::i=f::I=.-:r1-:::=::::::::]~::::: ==~:::::i~:=:::~~f-~:f~t~==1 I ::r::t~::::Y~=F::~ {~0j~t=l::f=j:::]~tJ~:::::~:~~a::E-r-:::~I-:~J::r

::~-=$:=:tt~ , ~~~~t~jitl~~~~~~I~:~~~·-~~~~I{~~.I~k'F.tfffi:t~3f~=f-+--f----- ~ - . "'- --t-~,--=±:: :::- =1=:::: +--~l~---t---l¥--c = =-:=::-: =---- =-= -:=-l::: -.:::::: -:±-- :-:::::: -:- :::- -===: ---=1-:.: 1= -::: ::::::::-- -=-- :::::-:---~J:.TI~t:::: :::F :.::-:::::: ::::: =-:-::::::::- =-- =:: ,l~tEt-r,'£ElIs -0---::::= :::: -:+::: :::-:1:::::::::- ll-I ::-::::- :-t= ::::'-.:: ---:::--:: :::-

~

~ib"- 30 40 50 60 70 80 ~ I Elevation in (IOO's) feet December 1964--Snow (Depth vs. Elev.) Yuba Watershed High Water Date: 23rd 50 - --- 1------t--- -l ----1-_+___+__+-~-1--I---I--I--I--I---I~ I~~--+---+--+-I-+-I--I-I-+-I--I-+- - - --f_ ------f------...J_ f_f_ +f_ -1- -I--f_ -----I-f_ - 7"lf--~iT! ~-if'rr: I~-+-+--I--I-I-+-I--I---I-+-II-+-~------1---- -I--!-I-- - f_f_ ------I--f_I--I- ~~n 1-- 1--1-+-+++-1--1-1--+-1-1- ---1-1-1--1-1-- 1------I-f_f_ - ~-I-- -1--- 1-- --I- S o"',-hb-I--- f_i--- - t-I- ---"-- ---~----±- --1---1--- -I--f_f_ ---r,:!..~- H I~_+_+__j-_I_-l__I-+_I__--- --I- - -!-- -1-1--1--1-- -I--f_ --1-+------'------1--1- -1------I--f_I-- - - f_f_I---f_ 1- - - --f_---f-- 1~-I-_+___+__-I-I_+_I__1- -- - - 1--- -1----1-1- -+------:------1--1------1-- - I----f_I-. ~ - -- -1-'------'------1--1--1--1--1-1---1--1--- 1-- ,-1-- - --1------1------T------1- ---1-1------1- +- --- -UTI -- -;-( U-lfC ~I-- 1--1-+-+-1-1--+---1------r---I--- 1--1------1------r-- -1-1------t---I------1------r- - S '. - =,"'-. ~-- 40 1--_ - ---H------_- -I-H------'-I-~ ------~------J------1------17 -1---1------~~)-L~: l! t!!~=~ I-f_ 1- - -1---I-:..~i---I--f-----f-::::~ ±=-:::: .::-==+=--=~-:=-=--= -- ~~::.=:~:F-I=---::.:--~=-t=-:- ::'-I=~;IIC=I±- -~-:--::~~-=r:.::::= === -1--1---1------1- -1- --I------I -- --- +------r- f- - -1-1------1/---1--1-10---1-- -I---i-r- -- ,-r --..,-1--+------I-I------¥--~-+-'--- --~1- ----1---1-1--,--- -1- --r-+I'j- ----t~+tf---- '-- -- - ~I _+- - -f_I--f_I------1-- ___...L_I-_ - -v---- -f----I--f-"'-:W-!-:-- ---,- ~ I I- - I- - - 1-1-1---1-1---1------1------i- --1 --1---1------I-i'i~I-t------f----H- ---1------~ ---I----1-1-- -1---1- -- -I-- -1-- --1- -1--1--1- ---I-- -I-- - 1- - - -I- 1- - 1- r------'-1-- -I- -- --I-I-I--L-~ h -- --+------+-1- f-- -- 1------=u - - - -I- -1--- --II- - :------r I- -i-I- -r 1--- -1- - - -1--1- i- --1--1-1- - --- j--I- -- - - f_ I- - - 1-1- - f_I-- 1--- -- 1-- I-- .,. 30++4444~~~~++++4444~~~~++++4444~~~~~++++++~444~~~~~++++~ = - -- -l--I--I-~_!= -=--~I=i=; -~::=i~=- ;-::::=J-::~ -- ---F~-r-:::r.::::r=+-- -+-1- --+ 1-:- :::-+=1=-== :_ fj -~~ ~~-!_:__ -::. --:- --===~=_=I=-~= ~-:= --i:_:::I-:- t .$ -1--+-+-1--+- I------1------:--1-1------1-----1-1--1--- -1---1-1- -1------1------!------I----I- --1-1-1-1-1------+-1---1--- -1- -:-- - =:-1-:- I--I_I_-I--I-+l-I-l------I-I----f---f_-I-I--I--I--I-I--I--I------:------I--I-I-I--I--~ -1------I-- -1- -1--1--1---- -!--__+__+-l__I_I__1I-- -- 1--1------1-1-- --I-I-!;/l-- -I-- --1--1-- - -I-l-----I-I- --I- -1-1- --1--1- ;9-- 1-1--1---1-1-- - I------1-1- -1-1- --!-- -1-+-- - --1-1------1-1-- --I- -!-i-I------I------1------1---1- ---1------1- ~ 1:.....1- -- --I-I-~===~::=;:::: I~~~ ~'=~!N~t~f\tD ;1-=-J; 6IMb;- ~s r; ~dh:;' s ~ wl. e ~ :-:::1= -~ =- :"-I_-I-_I __ I~ C~t!o = _::_:==-~~=~-:::= - -1-- f-- -I=_ -=:==-_ ~ 1-1-1- - I- --I-I- - - -i--iVl;n~Jl -- Oi ~ In: .---- - ''',: .r';., -I- .- --,- I-Jt - 1------I------I-- - 1- ---I-- ~ 20 -:-+= = -=- 'y- ]. =F =1-- _==-:::t-:::: = I=~-= =:~ t= -=:l=l= -:::: =~ .~ =:....I~_-=lwitll~ 1l1~ lm.iI~¥:41n -~t r=~; r=~=: =t=~= ~J~~~~ -:~+::::L =It~ --==:F~ :=-~tT-I=!=~ ~~:-:r= 1=-:::: ~ ~ +:::L ~ - ----T~ -- q:: =t-- T-r+rrlt~ --T:rt-~t I -- -+ -- ~~~~~~;;~~J~~~!~fl~~·~~=~~~~~'~!~J2~~.~I-tg=~~f~1§~~~ 10 ------1-1------_____1..+- __ -I------I- ----I:-~~ ~r- -- r-- -I -c:E-~k'I- ~ia -- t- :::i-.::±-L -I------1- _L __ L ------I--r- --I- - ~ ::::~-::::=:=::~if'=': ,~= :=:=::::=~= "tJ~~t!il'.= ~~= ~Jp~ ~ii!cEf~~~:-===:~ ==~:=~~t=~I=~I=-I=-~--=~:~ ~~;=~E~ -~~-~~ f=t- -=f!~l!--- :~S~E~I=I=I~=i= ~~~+-1-E'''~:f- ':: ~;:f:;=¥=~E1:£~ tJ::i': ~~=~tc=-F---:::=¥(=$E=~=t=~I-tE*~=fEI~ 1------+------1--8-- - In*v lle------pJ..------I----rn--L-,"- ~1 --T- -- .. ------1-+- -- -1------l-rl------1-1-- ---R-' ~ o 1--1--1--1--- 1- - b·I-];'~- - - -+-1 lL'~e\.... :r~ e. -+-I-t -- 1 --- --1---1--11------1- -i-r-I--- 1 ---1-- ~ ~ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 I Elevation in (lOO's) feet ~ February 1986--Snow (Depth vs. Elev.) Yuba Watershed High Water Date: 17th

100 T-l--~-T-f--r --~-r--J------l'~~Tl- -'--'J--r---'---'---'-T ffi-'c:r~-l~'- ~ T-I---- r I I I -rI~l-'---'--'-- 1- - 1- I - , 1 [ 1' 1 I _J ,11 '1 I - I i' - , -- 'I -I' I I [ 1- [ 1- I · '-II I - ~ II 1- ---- I -[ -I- j i 1- - I -I I , -1' -I I ,I I I [ I! ' I I -,! ,I I' , I -I ' - -. - I I ~ -

1 -- j 1-llllt ll -.-- 1-- 1 - 1 1 1- '1 1 -[II! [I 1-il-i -ll - -1-- 1 ll -l - i ~ I --I' I II --I'll :-1- j I '--I Cen!~~I&ie~ - Snd;l - - - [ -I I -I 1 - I 1- I I I, 1- I I ' I j - I - , - I - I 1 1 I' , -1 I- '1- ,- [ I 1- I - - - 1- 1-- I I - , I' I I' - I I I I - , I ' I -- I t' I 1 II I I ! , I 1 I I Lab I , - < I - -r i - I I - ', - - I - -, - I ' , I l' , I' ,I I , -- ! I I ,- , - - 1-:- I - -1 [-- I - , I I - , [ I I L - - 1- I -I L I I -I - I [ - , 1- ,Ii -I I I - ,I ,I 1- 1 , I! - , I , I --I - -I 1- -- I 1- i . 1 - 1-, I I: - ,- - I , J j I j--i 'I - \ \ - , I I ' ,- ~ - i ' I ,- - 80 +---I-~ -I-- I--l-+--I---,- -1 --t-~--""-1 ~~-~-f- -rJ -+--1-1'--f-.-+- t - ,-- - +-~----I-"'-TlJ-- - , --t--+r-i- i-:+ +-+ ------'--r---I-l-- I I -\ 1 ! - 'I' ' ,- ' II I - I 1 I ~ I' I I I ~ -I I I I 1 I' ! I - I 1 - ' , - I - - - \ I . I I ,i" J i I I ,I I - -, -- ," "I - 1 - I I - , l ' - .I -1 ,-I - 1 I 1 1 I' I , - ,- - -: I' i - -I I I ! I I j' - 1 I iii i 1 [ , I i [ , : i I I - [ I - , - , . i -- I I j - I I ,I 'I -, " I I ! I -, i I I ,- -. - , I' I I ,I I' I ' , I I I I ' I I I I I -- ,- 1 1 I - ! - - , 'I I I , I I I I I 1 ' I i I I I j I I I, I I I I , i : I' 1 I ' I .- I : - II - I II [ - : 1' - ' : l ' , , - I 1 11 '1 I I II I' I , fIJ - 1 - - I -~ 1 l' -I --, - 1 j I I , I - I I I I i J I I 'I -I ' , I I ' ,I i I [ I I I I " I I , I I 1 I I' I I, - I' I I 1 ~ - -- i - 1- t r 1 - - i I I' Iii 'I' I I, I I :: ", I: I ' I I ii, I I ' I II I - " 't3 - - I I I - I I " " I I' I I I 1 I ' I ' I, I I 1 , I i i I , I' I Ii' I 1 I ,. , el 60 - -j---t--r-- -+ 1- -1- L --- --~ -1' _-Lt---I~ I--L:t--4-!-+- 1 ---i---H--I---- -~-~, '-,---f --i~ -t-1--H-;---,-l-lJ-l- -T"i--; '-i--++-++--+-'-r~- -t-[-+-I •• ,- j 1- -I - -- , , -,- i -I I I I 1 1 I , - 1 J I I" I I 'I' I , I' ! j' "I"" I, I' , , - I I j el - - - - -II 1 1- I 1 I - , -, - : - ,- I I ' -, I 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' I I : I' I I I I ! 1 t' I : : ! ' I i I - , - j ,- , , -- •• -- - I -- I II- I - , , , - I - "I 1-- 'I' I" I I I 'I' I" 1 I - , -I , 1, - - I-! j I I I I "-"'. -I I I· I I ii'1 i I I I I t : I l O A Iii .c --- ' I i I 1- - , I iii 1 I 1 I I -I , I I ,! ~ I , I I Ii i I I I I: I 1 ' I ' [ I .... - I 1- i . ! ! -- 1 -1--I, ----l ! 1 1- I I I - j i j ; I ' I -I! I ii i I I I 1 I : I Ii ! I' ii' : : I I I I =- - 'I I - I I I - j I - I 1 1 - , - I, "[ I, , - -I ' I I I I I ,I I: I ' I 1 I I I I I -I ' - ~ - -- 1- I j I ill- I - I - i 'I I I" I ' i I I I ,. , : , I -I i' [' " ' i I ,-, I I - ~ - I, ' - 1- ', I ' I - - I --. 1 I , " I 'i' I I 1 I ' I ,I ii, - , I ,I I , ~ 40 - -- -1--1 1, I- I---I-;--j---t---I -< j--t--l-T-r- - -1 -~-,- j -r t-I--t --rl---l-~-I~-+- +-L I--~-I-t--r~ ~: -~ J--f--' :-i-H- _+_,_I_Lt-+-t_J._j' __ ~ I I - ! ' I -I - /1 , II " 1 1 I -- I I - " , - , I I -I I, -" I ' -I I - , I I I I ' I I , 1 r-I I 1 ' I ,- Q 1-) -1- i- ;- - - I i J -, 1- I' - - I ! I -I ' - I' I , - " I - -j I, I I -, do~b -sa1d1e I I I I -[ -1- I i -1-' '- 1-- = - , - I - I . - - -- I 1 ' I ill I 1 I I I: -- /--1 j I I I !* 1 I I ' 1 I ' - 'l, I 1 - 'I I 11-- I -I ' 00 -I -- 1--' 1 I 1 f ' I I -I I i I - 1'- , I, 1 G e\(k :Stor i , I' "",! .. I I I . 1_ _ 1__ , - - - I I - 1 I 'II 1 I, -I' I - -I I I' - I I r " I I j, \' ,I I , ~' 'I - - '-- i .. I ii _I i I : I : -I ! 1 : l 1 I : II! - I' : I -- U 1 : :- -[ 1 I I : I ~ -I 1 - [ I: -i !-- ~s~d l eb t~j. 1!~ $!l~),* Ua~ - -- I· I I I I' I I! t I I' I , ! j i i - I - l- I, . j ' -I II ! I 1 Ii, I i i i ~M~ dbp[h and Iw t~r 0 tdn I '·1 I, I ' 1 ' I : "I I I -, , . , I I 'I I I I I "1 f -'1. I' - I - - , - I 20 !_L 1.------I'--+-j---I--I--i I --I t- +1-I __ 1 -+--~ -~- - '-----l--r---[ --f--i-- - -1-1- +--,_l--,-ll _-J -T -~ r-t---j---t-- ~ ---*k)ng~th- ~1 etttijevv i I 1-I t il - - I' [ ,I I I, I I ' 'I -, - , 1 Bowman Dllrrl ,I ,I, I" , I " 1 - l I I I , - \ , -I j I I ' , - , I : 1 1 I 1 ,- I, iii' - I: I -~r I , I I : 'i I at 90th I si~e tq- e tir att( dFP1th!o t - - I - I ' -I I! " , I , I ' ,I "I I ' " I I I I , I I, . - I - oj -- I I i I I t II 1 - i I • - I I I I' IDI 1 I 9 i I I 1- , -I ! . ' 1 j I! I -I ' I I I,!, SMWI· Both st~tlfl~S 4reklJdtep n 1 I I I. : : 'reek , : , ' , - I I i I I I I . ' ,\1,..:;,1 t' - '1, - tb • ,- - -I I I 1'I' I 'I' I' ' : I' II.I 1 ~e~I ,. l F~r~bayI , - ii' , I j I' -I : I I ' , , 1ih~. ~ rxH~er C n i~1jVb r...Ji)a ill I , I ' 1 __ I I _li _I.-I:I, : - .._ ...[ -;-i :.1 '···· ·-I···· ! '11; !j' l¥tTh.·· · "1 .1 [. !. :jl I " ' ! . I, . . I . Jt Oi-ii'i. :!· i:: :I ' L'lfUffpru~d,n~, I I , , I,' jI I I ill' U" IT:"' jl <-I' I :]iI . ,- 1-·j·· _···· I·- l · '1 1 1 __ .. , I 1 .! .I· -L ···· - --IIL3t .. .. - .. ' ' ,! ., ,i ' : I 'I I' , 1 '1 " 1 , ··· 1 .. I'" I -'1 ' 1·· · 1, I" ! o -1-- _--1.- _L..'A' __ L.-L_i_l_ __ ... .J....~_~ . ... .0 _lo._-L.J...----!._:L(j i '_.L..L.1~ .-.l_.L_i_Ll__ I_.L...... i..... _...... J ___.....L __...L_.....L. ~ : I I I \ ' i ~() ~ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ii) Elevation in (100's) feet co• December 1996 - January 1997--Snow (Depth vs. Elev.) Yuba Watershed High Water Date: Night of the 1st or early morning of the 2nd

100 t.~~::t~~~'~~~ ~!t=~:~~=I~~'~~!~~~~!~~~I=~=l~=-~:;;~ =~e= ~~; ~~tf~~=,=~~~~~~~ 90 lemr: ~wrr =1 .~ -=::~~~~ ~~. ~~f~~~·=·~~~- ~~~~~~~~.:~~-. ~=:~ ~~~~·~:~-=~~-~f~~=~~~~:~=~:~~ ~~~~~~~:~-~~~~~~~~=~~=~~~ ~~~~~'~F;C ~~~::~!E~.~:~=i w+ .. ••. . 1 ::. ,~ =~=.~.~rr:~~ -;~~~~=;=~~~=i;~~~;~~=~.~~~~ ~~=~;~~~;j~~i~;:::~~:i~ 'S: --+-T·-T-T--~·..\.-T-· ····1······ ·-·-r--I·-· f---I-.J. .- -.-o r --1-- --I-.I---r-·,-~---rr --···--·-T---T-T--· -- -r- -.,.- -J-- .-.. --/-- --~..\-- --,-.--.-1--.--,- I·-r-- ,I·--+i-_.-f_-.-.-.. ff.-_I_--~ .S: --+-.-.,-.. -+-+....,....-1-1.-+ .--.... -- --f-I-·- -- --+-'--r+- --t--,--·l-+--·-r--r·--I ·-j··-r-··----· --+-----t-··r·,-··.,.-+- -+.-'-.~-... -- -J - -t--J-- --j---.-r----I---r-.-r- -,-, '-' .::I... 50 ·1 II! +-! 1 1 1++-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-+-+-++-H-H 1 1 1 I 1+--H-H I. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Y 1 1 1 1 1 I I I f-- fr ~ ~ rJ).=

~c:s 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ~ CB- Elevation in (IOO's) of feet ~ Grass Valley Daily Precipitation--December 1861 through January 1862

6.00 I

5.00

..­ til Note: The 1.32 CI,) ~ inches that were -5 4.00 I- recorded on the ~= ..... 23rd, actually '-"= fell on the afternoon of the o 3.00 I-- - .....= 22nd . ~ - ~ .....~ .....c.. I CJ ~ 2.00 I----- I------I-- ~ I I ~ ~ I I 1.00 I--- t- i- f-- I-- I-- I-

-+I ~ I I . I I !.-n .J.. 0.00 .. D [] [][] " ~ -[] n ~ 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 ~<:::. December January Date ~, . Source: December Precipitation - Grass Valley National and Nevada Democrat Newspapers ~ January Precipitation - Grass Valley National Newspaper, Vol. 9, No.78, Feb. 6, 1862, pg.2 Sacramento Daily Precipitation--December 1861 through January 1862

6.00 ,

",

5.00 - '

, .­ rI.l - ..=a.I 4.00 ....=~ . .... '-"= , , ,. 8 3.00 I.G • ...... C':I ....Cot ~ a.I 2.00 " ~ ~ I , '" I " 1.00 -

~

" 0.00 n ~ n ~ ~ nn~ n n ~ 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 ~ ~ December Date January ~ • Source: Hayes Scrapbooks Vol. 78 N Sacramento Daily Mean Temperatures--December 1861 through January 1862 65

60 ..... --....a.> .= =t 55 .= ~ ~ (I:) ~ 50 , 1-4 ,i eIJ a.> ~

~45= a.> 1-4 ..... ~= ~ 40 Q. ea.> ~ 35

30 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 ::!l December <.() Date January c::: Source: Hayes Scrapbooks Vol. 78 ~ Note: Evidence indicates an error in recording the temperature for the 29th of December. It was ~ changed from 59 degrees to 54 degrees. Yuba Watershed - Historical Relationship Between Three (3) Heaviest Consecutive Days of Precipitation Recorded at Grass Valley and Lake Spaulding During Select Warm Storms of 20th Century

I ..- ·1--11"1 · I 1 . lf 25 -II - II. I T.T l rnll j II i _ LI I: I-- i.· , I I ' 1-1 I II I I - I .. - I II I ! I II II -- IT 1- r 1. !- .. -.. _1 .-1_- 1- I I1 I I I . I _ ·lI ·1'I ··' . 1.1, -- . .1 .. · . . i , I I I , - I 1, . ,- I I .. _ I 1·1-1 1 1 1 1..--- 1 II -1- -1 j 1- f -II! jl 11.- 1 I I I 1- i.1 I it I . I IH I I I I I I I I -,I Ii'. I· I 'I I I ' I"I I , , , I, I 20 -IITI Ill ·.I.I .. j .11 1-· j •.... Ti - !Ji . I-Ill -I - 1 .- .I ~_ JI - 1··..... "I _I -. 1 J 1. __ -.1-.-.1 - - 1- j I t ii - I I- 1''_ I -j .1 - _ I I - ! I. I -. _ _ I l ' 1 ..J I, ,.. I ' II ' - 1- I ' i . I.'f- I i .111- --I I I i I til I ' "1 . IlL .c . I.. . I J I _ . 1._ .. I...... _ .l _ CJ I I_ ! I !'- I- /.. fl '" .1 _ 1. f ' I I. I 1 I 1 I I I 1 - I i I I ! ' LI I 'I I I - I I 1 I I I I I I . I.' ,I , "'" .9 >. 15 ---L...... I • ~ I I I I I 1,1 .:= ~ 1 -I .'I .t. Ir·j 1.. . .II1 I '.1.1-- jI _ I I I I, , r 'i 1 - , ...... = .-.- . '1. I' 1./1 ., -= .. ..I -' , I .:=> I I II .S til I '. 1- .. til I.J I(Jjll .. , I !l e _J_I! -I [11 11 - 'a~ --,- _ - j i 10 T-'--'-~ ~I IIi j fI i ....CJ f:! . . 1 II I 1-··1 I 11 1 - ' I ~ 1 I, I _ I H' - I ' I! -l I 192~ Mar. I' I' I j 1 ".j I 1····1····' -1------1 I I I I -, !I·· ~~· 1 - 1 - I I' f:II Pfcj -1 - + -1 1 J -1-1 I II_I! -11 - [1 1 I -I 1 I 11 - 5 -jl-+-+-+-i---+-+-+I -1,i---+1 - 1--+1 I I I i f I J I I 'I' I 'I j I I-t T fj rJ- -rT l :1- -1 - 11 - 1 I -r I . '.-- II .-11 '.1 I. i.. ! I... I. -I . . .1 I -.1 1- 1 I-II I Ii -i l-r! 1- -1 Till.': ' I_II i 1 T ' I I , [-+ 1" 1- i 111. 1--1 1'1- II - i-- I -I \- I- I r- '- I - I I·· -.-. , "l) lFT: -I rC-J LL[ i -- ·j- ll! -1 :111 . tl[· ri--I·j -1 o I I I I ! I - I T j ~ltb!-I - - I -I II · _J.J---I +-- I--I,...±t [- i i ~ c:::: o 5 10 15 20 25 30

~ Precipitation (in inches) Note: Warm stonns of Jan. 1909 and Oct. 1962 were +I Lake Spaulding omitted because of apparent measurement problems Three (3) Day Precipitation "Burst"--that includes "HWD" Key: 0 - Grass Valley • - Lake Spaulding 25 tSI - Estimated Lake

20 I ~"~------.~~------

,,-., IJ:J Q) ..c: ~ .S 15 I "-"-"I f'\."-~ -----\; ...::: '-" ::: ...... o ea ::: 10 ...~ ~ ~ ~

5

~ ~ o '>"'3 , » J &», L-- Dec. 1861 Jan. 1862 #1 Jan. 1862 #2 Mar. 1907 Jan. 1909 Dec. 1955 Dec. 1964 Feb. 1986 Jan. 1997 0/ HWD---+ 9th 11th Late 22nd 19th 15th 23rd 23rd 17th Late 1st ~ Early 23rd Flood Events HWD _ High Water Date Early 2nd Yuba Watershed Area--% Covered by Snow (40.0" or less in depth) Four Days Prior to "HWD" * (See exception below)

70 .------~

60 +I------· --~------~

50 +1 ------1

40 =QJ ~ ~ 30

20

10

o 12/5/1861 1/7/1862 1118/1862 3/15/1907 1111/1909 12/19/1955 12/19/1964 2/15/1986 12/29- ~ (2 days 30/1996 ~ c::: Dates prior to ~------~ HWD) ~ D 10.0" to 40.0" snow depth • Snowline to 10.0" snow depth I I *HWD- High Water Date "" Elevation of 40" Snow Depth Line On Yuba Watershed Four Days Prior to "HWD" * (See exception below) Percent (%) of Watershed Covered by Snow (» Than 40" Deep

__...... 80()()~7400 aJ .--- aJ ~ 7000 -+-- ..... (31 %) .. - (15%) '-"= --~51700 (4ll%) (34%) (29%) n:6650·:-- -~(~28~· ~=-:v)---- aJ .....= 6000 +-- 5100 (45%) - :;500 . .---5900 (31%) ~ .---- ~ r--o 4800 r--- ,7no .= ~ 5000 +- .1-- aJ r-- ~ > . ) ~ 4000 +- 1------1--- - -11 " . I-- 0 I ' 00.= 3000 -+-- ..--_ ._- ---- I-- 0 ~ ~ o 2000 -1- - 0 '~ 1 ...... = ~ 1000 +- 1-----1 1------1 1---1 . 1- ----1 " 1-----1 I-- ~ aJ c..&:\ -~ O +I~~~-'--~~--r-~~L-'-~--~~~--~-r~--~~~~~~--~~--~~~~ ~ 12/5/1861 1/7/1862 1118/1862 3/15/1907 111111909 12/19/1955 12/19/1964 2/15/1986 12/29- ~ (2 days prior 30/1996 I to HWD) Dates "-J * HWD- High Water Date Percent (%) of Area Below Snowline On Yuba Watershed Four Days Prior to "HWD" * (See exception below)

60 -.------~I

50

40 ...-

~ ~= 30 ~ ~- 20

10

~ o ~ 12/5/1861 1/7/1862 1/18/1862 3/15/1907 1/11/1909 12/19/1955 12/19/1964 2/15/1986 12/29- ~ (2 days 30/1996 J

40 - r---

35 c ..

,.-.. 30 rJl Qj ,.Q , ....~ 25 - r---,---,-- .... '-'= r--- =o 20 ---- I- ;: S e , I, .s. 15 .. - .... r--- ~ r--- l-I -- ~ ~ 1- 10 r---

r--- 5 - " - ~ c..a _J c::. o Dec. 1861 Jan. 1862 #1 Jan. 1862 #2 Mar. 1907 Jan. 1909 Dec. 1955 Dec. 1964 Feb. 1986 Jan. 1997 ~ HWD -. 9th 11th Late 22nd 19th 15th 23rd 23rd 17th Late 1st I Early 23rd Flood Events Early 2nd ~ * HWD - High Water Weighted Mean Temperature of Storm During 3 Day Precipitation "Burst" (calculations were made using Grass Valley daily precipitation and Sacramento daily mean temperatures) 62 ~------~

61 +I------~ ------~ ....Z' ~= 60 r-----~------~ CIj ~ ~ 59tl~*~==~------~~~------~------~ ~ 58 CIj ~ eIJ ~ 57 ....= '-'CIj 56 ~ ~= 55 ~ CIj Co. a 54 CIj ~ 53 -r, 52 ~- ~ Dec. 1861 Jan. 1862 #1 Jan. 1862 #2 Mar. 1907 Jan. 1909 Dec. 1955 Dec. 1964 Feb. 1986 Jan. 1997

Cti * -One and a half degrees were added to the temperature to help Flood Events ~• compensate for the warming that occurs due to growth in urban areas. () Fifty Two (52) Consecutive Days of Runoff on Yuba River @ Marysville & Smartville Comparing Major Floods of 20th Century with Estimated Flows for Dec. 1861 - Jan. 1862 Flood Period • - Average daily flow for 32 days @ Smartville--prior to 15 day period

* D - Average daily flow for heaviest 15 consecutive days @ Marysville

• - Average daily flow for 5 days @ Smartville--after 15 day period 60 .------~

~~ 50 11------~------. ----.------

~ _rJ) g 40 -1"1----.....J o ~ .... '-"= ~ 30 -.-1---' o ~ ~ ~ 20 -.-1-- CI.l E 10 <~ ~ ~ o c:: , 1997 1986 1964 1955 1909 1907 1862 (1) * -Unregulated flow computations made by Flood Events Note: Estimate for Dec. 1861 and \.!.. Corps of Engineers for 20th century floods. Jan. 1862 was made by authors. '"- Heaviest 52 Consecutive Days of Runoff on Yuba River @ Smartville Comparing Major Flood Periods of 20th Century with Estimated Runoff During Legendary Dec. 1861 - Jan. 1862 Flood Period

3.0 --r------~.-----."..-j ------,-----~-.---

2.5 +------1 I----

2.0 I---- ..;.ow - r--- ~ ~ - - ~ - - ;...~ -<~ ~ 1.5 I---- I---- ~ t:I:l ....=~ -.... -~ 1.0 I-- I--

0.5 t-- I--

1997 1986 1964 1955 1909 1907 1862

* Daily Streamflow Values Flood Events Note: Estimate for Dec: Adjusted for Storage 1861 - Jan. 1862 was (New Bullards Bar Res.) made by authors. Total Runoff (in Acre Feet) For S2 Consecutive Days on Yuba River @ Marysville & Smartville--Comparing Major Flood Periods of 20th Century with Estimated Runoff During Legendary Dec.1861- Jan. 1862 Flood Period

• - Total of 32 days of runoff @ Smartville prior to heaviest 15 consecutive days * 0 - Heaviest 15 consecutive days of runoff on the Yuba River @ Marysville • - Total of 5 days of runoff @ Smartville after heaviest 15 consecutive days 3.0 ~~------~

2.5 +------~----~

..- 2.0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0.5

0.0 1997 1986 1964 1955 1909 1907 1862

* - Unregulated flow computatlOns. Flood Events Note: Estimate for Dec. made by Corps of Engineers for 1861 and Jan. 1862 was 20th century floods. made by authors. r-'1d()J9

Streamflow (cubic feet per second)

tv -'" 0\ 00 0 tv -'" 0\ I~ 000 o -0 -o -0 -o o '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 !!!. 000 o 0 o 0 o -< o 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o < III C (J) 12/111861 IT 1> '"(3 %t. C a.::J (J) 12/411861 11 a. ~ ~ o 5' (J) =0'" ::J (J) 121711861 III 'I~~ffiffiffiffii~~~ ~ iil 1211011861 = ~ !e. ~ UI ~~ o 12/1311861 < """,. o N (D a ~ ~ '""t = 12116/1861 = ~ ~ ~ \LJ. Q. 12119/1861 ~ I ~ a ~ (D """,.'""t ='""t =""",...... 12/22/1861 ~ o ~~ ...... Q...... """,. ~ 12/25/1861 ~ (D (D N -- = 12/28/1861 ~('1= ...... ~\LJ. ~~t""'t­ QC;-"''"''t 5' 12/3111861 O"\~(D ;- ~N= 113/1862 ~a ~~= ~QCo 11611862 -\1 O"\O"\~ ...... ~ ~ ~ QC I """,. O"\~= NW~ 1112/18621I91186211Im~~~mm~m~ { t:,-,~ ~ 1/1511862 QC 0"\ N 1118/1862 '-'

1/2111862112411862 {'1IIImffi~ ~ 112711862 113011862 f Yuba River at Smartville, CA (1/26/1907 - 312811907) Heaviest 52 Consecutive Days of Runoff (1/31/1907 - 312311907)

160,000 . -

. ~ _.. ., .- --"g 140,000 ... - .. . . . 0 ~ . .- . .. - - -- ...~ 120,000 - - ell Q; .- .. . - .- .- ... - 'S 100,000 ~ ...~ y ~ 80,000 - - . "0. - =~ .. 60,000 .- --~ 0 - .. = .- 5 40,000 . . ~ ell ...... c. - 00. 20,000 .. II =fHF I~~ n:: IHHHHHHHHHHH1---n-IHHHHHHHHl-IHHHHHHl-n-n-f1--*. tI=fH"hlHPlI 0 I I I I I I I ~ t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- t--- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

160,000 _.. -.. - .. . ] 140,000 . 0 . . CJ - - -- ~ 120,000 - . . - - . .' . - ~ - . . -c.. - - - - . "t 100,000 . . .' . - . ~ - ....CJ - - .c 80,000 ., - - . CJ '-'= 60,000 ~ .. - 0 - .. =e 40,000 . Cd - ~ - ...... ,---- rF.l 20,000 ,. - 1\ n n n 1\ 1\ ~~ ~FfI=O: Ilf-fHHHt-.n-.n.fr"1r"1n'l-fHHHHHHJ-i~ 0 I I I I I ~~I~~m-1HHHHHhnI ' 00 00 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ ......

Streamflow (cubic feet per second) ...... I~ N ..J::.. 0\ 00 o N ..J::.. 0\ o 0 o 0 o 0 0 o ~o '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 E::r o 0 o 0 o 0 0 o 000 o 0 o 0 0 o ~ ~ 12/14/1955 '"0- E. -< 3 1211711955 (l) g ~ ~ = 8:=. o ~~ ::;: ::::::::: ~ iii ii llill 1111 I 11111 11111 11111 II a-< $:= (I)=!~ .~ < (l) 12/2611955 1! !! ! ! ! ! '" ~ 00 (I) :;;. == ""'l 12/29/1955 (I) ~ Cd fI.l ""'l (I) ___ ~f"t-~ 1/111956 ~ Ul ~ 0 N N .,..

Ul ~ ---~ =-""'l 111011956 =~ N .,.. N (JQ ---(I)~=­:;r --- ~ 111311956 QC ".~ ...... ~ ;:;;0;:;;0 ~ \0 ~ \0 ~ 111611956 i : : : : : : : I Ul~ Ul~ 0\ fI.l Ul - '-"0 I ~ 111911956 t-Io)N~ ~---= 1122/1956 = ~ fI.l ~ 0 =o ~ (I) 1/2511956 ~~~ ~~ 1/2811956 ~ (I) 113111956 ~

2/311956 t 2/611956 t

2/9/1956

211211956 ~ Yuba River Below Englebright Dam Plus Deer Creek Near Smartville, CA (12/16/1964 - 2/15/1965) Heaviest 52 Consecutive Days of Runoff (12121/1964 - 2/10/1965)

160,000 ,

"0 --§ 140,000 ~ QJ r:I1_ 120,000 QJc.. "t 100,000 ~ ....~ ,.Q 80,000 =~ '-' 60,000 ~ 0 =a 40,000 ~ QJ ..... 20,000 rJ'J- II ~ n ~ 0 RHi-fHHI-U- ~~~~~~n ~nftft]~uu U ' 'II ' '<:t '<:t '<:t '<:t '<:t '<:t lr) lr) lr) lr) lr) lr) lr) lr) lr) lr) lr) lr) lr) lr) lr) \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 0\..... 0\...... 0\ .....0\ .....0\ 0\...... 0\ .....0\ 0\..... 0\...... 0\ 0\...... 0\ .....0\ .....0\ .....0\ .....0\ .....0\ .....0\ .....0\ .....0\ \0 0\ N lr) 00 ..... C") \0 0\ N lr) 00 ..... '<:t t--- 0 lr) 00 ..... '<:t ~ --..... --..... --N --N -- --C") ------..... --..... --..... --N --N N-- --C") --~ ------..... --..... ~ ...... N N N N N N N N N ------...... -- -- N N ~ --..... --..... --..... --...... --..... ------Date ~I Note: Graph depicts daily mean streamflow values

-~~~ - ~-----.~ ------~ - 160,000 --~--- ,- "0 § 140,000 - c.# ~ ~ 120,000 ~c.. ~ 100,000 - ~ c.# .-,.Q 80,000

~= 60,000 ~ 40,000 =ec: ~ - - ...... 20,000 00 n - .. -

n n n I Fl I ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1-il-ii--u-ii-u-lHHHl-, n-ii- t1t-u=tr-il=tr-D-n-n-n-n-u-u-u-u u u U-U-U-u-u II II 0 , I , , I , ! , \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 \0 Ci' 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 ,..... ,...... ,...... - ...... -1 .-1 ...... ,....., ...... '-, ..... 00 .- t- o ('f) \0 ...... t- d tl') \0 0'1 N V') 00 ...... ('I') \0 0'1 ~ --- .------.- ---,...... ---N ---N ------~ --- ..... ---...... ,..... ---.-. ------N ------("') ------("') fl') ("') N """ ~- ~ ~ ~ --- N N ('-1 ------("') ("') ("') ('1") M M ('1") ("') ------~ ---N ---N ---N ------""" """ """ I Notes: J. Daily streamflow values adjusted for storage (New Bullard Bar Res.) Date 2. Daily values rounded off to the nearest 100 (cfs) 4S' ______...J! ------" - --- ..... ------.-.-. - .------~-.- -- - Yuba River Below Englebright Dam Plus Deer Creek Near Smartville, CA (12/16/1996 - 2/15/1997) Heaviest 52 Consecutive Days of Runoff (12/21/1996 - 2/10/1997)

160,000

"C -- 140,000 =o CJ ~ ..IZl 120,000 ~ Q.; "t 100,000 ~ CJ .....c 80,000 =CJ 60,000 --~ C

~ ..=~ 00....

;D D D D 110 D D D II 0 0 \ I Iii i imijij~~~ \ I I I I I oi ,J r--- r--- r--- r--- r--- r--- r--- r--- r--- r--- r--- 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 0'1 ~ ...... tr) 00 ...... ~ r--- 0 tr) 00 ...... ~ --...... --...... --N N------M --~ ------...... --...... ~ N N N ~ --...... --...... --...... --...... --...... ------N --N ~, Notes: 1. Daily streamflow values adjusted for storage (New Bullard Bar Res.) Date 2. Daily values rounded off to the nearest 100 (efs) ~ TABLE A

SNOW PACK DEPLETION DURING HEAVY WARM STORMS

Beginning 4 days prior to high water date (HWD) at Marysville or Vicinity (HWD indicated by asterisk)

A. December 1955: 18th 19th 20th 21st 22nd 23rd* 24th

Lake Spaulding 24" 21" 15" spotty spotty 0" 19" (5,156 ft) Bowman Dam 24" 22" 19" 14" 3" 0" 16" (5,347 ft) Cisco 27" 39" 36" 34" 26" 20" 42" (5,939 ft) Soda Springs 53" 70" 69" 64" 52" 43" 71" (6,752 ft) Squaw Valley 24" 36" 30" 24" 10" 4" 32" (6,226 ft)

B. December 1964: 19th 20th 21st 22nd 23rd*

Lake Spaulding 10" 12" 4" 0" 0" (5,156 ft) Bowman Dam 12" 9" 4" 0" 0" (5,347 ft)

C. November 1950: 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st* 22nd

Central Sierra 33" 26" 17" 10" 9" 3" 3" Snow Laboratory (6,902 ft)

D. March 1907: 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th* 20th

Emigrant Gap 30" 27" 20" 5" Trace 1" (5,230 ft) Laporte 49" 52" 41" 34" 29" 34.5" (5,000 ft)

E. Dec.-Jan. 1996-97 28th 29th 30th 31st 1st 2n d *

Lake Spaulding 27" 24" 24" 17" 9" Trace (5,156 ft) TABLE B

Rate of Decrease of Daily Mean Flow Following the “High Water Events” of December 1937 and February 1963 On the Yuba River at Smartville

(cfs = cubic feet per second)

1963 1937

Date Peak Flow* % of Date Peak Flow* % of (Decreasing Previous (Decreasing Previous Daily Values) D a y ’ s F l o w Daily Values) D a y ’ s F l o w

2/1/63 *102,550 cfs 12/11/37 *74,200 cfs 2/2/63 32,680 cfs 32% 12/12/37 24,900 cfs 34% 2/3/63 16,965 cfs 52% 12/13/37 11,900 cfs 48% 2/4/63 11,736 cfs 69% 12/14/37 7,460 cfs 63% 2/5/63 10,311 cfs 88% 12/15/37 5,720 cfs 77% 2/6/63 7,848 cfs 76% 12/16/37 4,460 cfs 78% 2/7/63 6,272 cfs 80% 12/17/37 3,730 cfs 84% 2/8/63 5,776 cfs 92% 12/18/37 3,240 cfs 87% 2/9/63 5,454 cfs 94% 12/19/37 2,860 cfs 88% 2/10/63 5,021 cfs 92% 12/20/37 2,560 cfs 90% 2/11/63 4,653 cfs 93% 12/21/37 2,340 cfs 91% 2/12/63 4,347 cfs 93% 12/22/37 2,270 cfs 97% NOTE: Percentages are rounded off to nearest whole number

TABLE C

PERCENT OF WATERSHED AREA WITHIN 1000 FOOT INTERVALS

YUBA RIVER WATERSHED ABOVE SMARTVILLE (1195 Square Miles)

Below 1000 feet 4%

1000 - 2000 feet 10%

2000 - 3000 feet 14%

3000 - 4000 feet 16%

4000 - 5000 feet 14%

5000 - 6000 feet 16%

6000 - 7000 feet 17%

7000 - 8000 feet 8%

8000 - 9000 feet 1%

Source: Graph created by J.F. Hannaford, C.G. Wolf and R.W. Miller for a paper presented to the Western Snow Conference held at Bozeman, Montana, April 16-18, 1958.